storyskip

Three episodes in, this season feels very different from seasons 1 & 2. It does seem to be preparing the audience for a series end. Nate was the character that drew me to the original Leverage, so I never want to disrespect the character or his memory. But I was enjoying the dynamic between Harry and Sophie, so it was jarring to see the shift from that to “Harry and Sophie are both on dating apps, but are looking elsewhere and will only be each other’s wingman. I think what I’m finding more jarring is part of (IMHO) the strength of the original Leverage and Redemption season 1 & 2, has been the concept of ‘found family’. But this season of Redemption seems to be busting the family’ apart and just leaving them as co-workers. I completely respect that the cast are ready to move on with other projects, have breakout projects already in flight. But I would rather see this series end with the whole team together, gearing up for their next job, than this slow ‘oh, everyone is drifting away’ storyline.

Given the recent direction the writers have taken the character of Shaw, I didn’t miss him. One SJW > professional police, is enough, even for a crossover. Also I’m excited for some of Macad’s other projects, so it is a win/win for me. I agree with the general sentiments being expressed here, I felt that Brady was a very good balance to Benson. The two actresses had really good chemistry, and given my opinion on the direction Mariska has gone with Benson, it is no easy thing for me NOT to fast forward through her scenes. But in this crossover, at least when she was with Brady, I not only tolerated Benson on my screen, but enjoyed the story! Regarding Riley. It’s my head canon, that along with wanting to close a case that she was responsible for 2 years ago, Brady clocked Benson from the start. Brady saw how Benson was going to steamroll this situation, and she was protecting Riley by getting him out of the way. Riley couldn’t have pushed back against a superior of Benson’s rank without risking his badge. Brady is just a Lt, but she is a commanding officer and more of an equal to Benson. She has more room to directly rebuke, and override Benson, than Riley. Price has handled Benson in the past, so he’s also capable of standing up to her, especially with Baxter having his back. Carisi has an established rapport with Benson, and knows how to field some of her BS. Maroun would have just joined Benson’s crusades, so best to get her out of the way, and personally I enjoy any episode that has minimal Maroun. So yeah, that’s my head canon for character motivations. Basically we still had Olivia in full righteous display, requiring 5 powerful characters to be her balance, because Olivia is just.that.awesome! But hey, at least those 5 other characters were allowed to be right when they needed to be right, so I’m a happy audience member.

Actually I believe ER did it first, with Ray Barnett. One of my favorite lines “Weaver just sprayed for interns.” Also Santos now reminds me of Rocket Romano. The unfortunate reality that sometimes gifted hands are attached to unpleasant personalities.

If the defense had been able to pursue a viable alternative suspect they could have easily raised reasonable doubt. The case the prosecution had was built on a lot of circumstance. But the defense attorney was so focused on the idea of inherent bias that he didn’t craft reasonable doubt. He kept trying to pin the crime on someone who had a rock solid alibi. Let’s say, for instance, that the business manager did hire someone to shoot the victim. Instead of grandstanding on “white men don’t get their hands dirty”, follow the money trail. Hit men don’t work for free. But once again the L&O writers are too focused on their soap box dramatics, they fail to craft a well plotted story. Full credit to Cain’s actor. His breakdown after the verdict was read convinced me that he was probably innocent. The business manager probably did hire someone, but the defense attorney botched the job. Except Shaw has form for letting his own inherent bias affect his professional conduct, and Price has had to pick up the pieces on 2 or 3 occasions as a result. I really enjoyed Shaw in his first season, and Machad is such a good actor. But these last few seasons Shaw has become as much of a sjw/set himself up as judge and jury, as St Olivia. It’s soured me on the character.

“We know how to party in the ER” paraphrasing, but that was a line from John Carter in ER in the episode where Carter and Lucy get attacked.

I know it’s causing Wells and Whyle a legal headache, but I laughed when the ER Easter Egg dropped in this episode.

This is pure speculation, just based on my personal observations, and understanding of how linear time looks. I’m beginning to believe that part of the application process (or maybe something done after contestants have been signed on, but before filming starts) involves the contestants submitting the beautiful concept drawings the audience gets shown. We know there isn’t enough time for the bakers to sketch those detailed drawings, then execute them in the 1-5 hour timeframe of the challenge. So I feel like the bakers are told, (give us a portfolio of concepts art for the 26 theme bakes, and be sure to include X,Y,Z elements). Then the expectation is the bakers bake their concepts. Been thinking about this especially because of Paul’s gorgeous design for his chocolate eggs, and the complete disaster that he actually produced. It seems a classic case of “yeah, I can do this and this and this” on paper, but in practice he didn’t have the time to bring in those elements. This might be why the concept art has things like flowers everywhere, the producers tell the contestants they’ll need X,Y,Z elements in a bake, but when it comes time to film, and/or in the editing, the producers scrap reference to that element. This is why we end up with these ‘plot holes’ in the episode we end up watching.

I’m tired of the WRITERS biting off more than they can chew. It wouldn’t matter what characters were having to spit these stupid lines, the writers aren’t being consistent with the characters. The writers keep changing the characters attitudes/personalities to fit whatever “ripped from the headlines” special interest story of the week they try to cram into 42 minutes. In this episode the writers were trying to cram in, post partum psychosis (a very complicated circumstance just on its own), toxic masculinity, anti-therapy (in place of anti-vaxx) philosophy, and domestic, emotional abuse all into one episode. Each one of those subjects could/should be its own episode. Cramming them all into one was stupid.

When the monk was giving his morning lesson at the start of this episode, I knew the ending was going to be less than satisfying. For me, at least, that proved to be the case. YMMV

And this is why people in crisis don’t seek help. They know they’re going to be criminalized.

Agreed. But this episode highlights a sad reality. Hospital policy and procedure is not a safe space for anyone suffering a mental health crisis. Unpopular take I expect but a sad reality. Look at Gloria. She didn’t give a damn about David. He wasn’t a person to her, he was a liability that she wanted thrown in a hole so there was no blowback on the hospital. McKay didn’t see a conflicted kid who needed help. She was only focused on hypothetical victims, not the patient brought into the ER by his mom. Robby tried to handle the situation by putting Theresa and David onto the path of people who would help them, but McKay did an end run around him, and brought in the cops. This is why people who might need mental help, are so reluctant to seek it out. For all the lip service about removing the stigma around mental health, and recognizing mental illness as a disease to be treated, when people in crisis try to do the right thing, they’re treated like criminals by the very system that is supposed to help them. Theresa should sue the hell out of the hospital and name McKay in a malpractice suit.

I don’t disagree with this statement in the slightest. But having watched these “baking championship” shows for years, there have been times when “tasted good, but decoration failed the challenge/was lack luster, etc” has often sent people home. The competition requires both the taste and the look to meet the challenge. One is not more important than the other.

I took Tim’s “enlightenment” moment with the monk an entirely different way. My read on that scene was that Tim found the idea of “returning to the peace of the collective consciousness” as a “pro” to offing himself and escaping the pain of life. Victoria’s words seemed to double down on this, with her “I’d rather be peacefully dead, than struggling with the pain of being poor.” Of course Victoria made that comment thinking it was all speculation because she cannot conceive that her little bubble could be busted. I think Tim is going to take the monks words as “permission”, heck even encouragement to become a family annihilator, because in his confused (drugged) mind, he’d be doing his family a favor; giving them peace instead of pain. Lorazepam (any of benzodiazepines) are a slippery slope, especially if taken for anxiety. Sure while you’re under their influence the world seems fine, but when you’re no longer under their influence, the anxiety comes back twice as hard. It’s part of why benzodiazepines are so addictive. So Tim is a ticking time bomb, because he’s about to lose everything, go to prison, lose his identity as “family provider”, he’s put himself on a drug that can really muck up your brain chemistry, and he’s “hearing” a message that suggests death is this peaceful existence, where life is pain. I think Gary’s dinner party is a red herring. As someone already noted, we know from episode 1 that Belinda is going to survive. Rick and his gun are in Bangkok, so that leaves Tim to snap.

This was an interesting episode from the production standpoint. I enjoyed getting to see the 2-7 working with uniforms to get the perp. I think Nolan uses the law as his loadstone when a case is morally grey. I don’t think he expected the judge to allow as much speculation and “paint the victim as a murderer” as the judge did. Nolan played from the rule book he believes in, but the big question is, does that rule book even apply anymore. I think the defense attorney waiting until after the People rested was a big factor in shutting down the argument Nolan should have taken: Killing Andrew doesn’t stop the “business model” from continuing to “kill” people through denial of claim. The corporations will simply hire a new Andrews to keep the business model chugging. The “Weller was saving all the lives by killing Andrews” defense would have encountered more headwind if Nolan had been prepared to show that Andrews was just a cog. Oh, this cog broke? Just put in a new cog and keep on going.

I feel like it could go either way. It does seem too cliche that the son turns out to be the shooter. I’m leaning towards he’ll be a fatality. BUT this show has shown that: A) Sometimes the horses are horses, not zebras. B) That the writers aren’t afraid to leave the audience without answers. IE we may not learn the shooter’s identity. I am wondering if it might turn out to be the man who punched Dana. An extreme headache, a violent personality, maybe he was on the edge of a psychotic break and decided “I’ll show that ER what it means to be too busy to treat people!!” We know kids can get hold of high capacity firearms, but usually they have that access via the home. The mother has been so worried, and has been trying to do the right thing, I just feel like she would have lead with “his father had assault rifles…” but she never mentioned her son having ready access to even a pistol. Also the shooter has taken down a wide range of ages, sexes, races. The son was focused on teenage girls in his peer group. Driscoll (I think that was his name) seemed the type of personality to have high capacity rifles, just to be able to boast about having high capacity rifles. His anger was also at EVERYONE, not specific targets. I think the son is going to end up a fatality, possibly while trying to help others.