Danielg342

I hate what they've done with the character. Not only do her flaws just come out of nowhere- as if the writers have no idea what her character actually is- there's just no depth and it strains credulity. DeShawn Jackson said it himself when he wondered how someone could make it to NCIS without knowing how to swim, and I will add I have to wonder how someone made it as far as she did in the Australian National Police if she's too tepid to fire her gun. The worst part about Evie Cooper is that Tuuli Narkle in real life is built like a tank which makes Cooper's characterization as this vulnerable damsel even more confusing. Yeah, maybe the writers were thinking they're "adding depth" to the character which why they justified it, but it was the wrong choice. Not only is the "damsel cop" an overused cliche, it really undermines what Tuuli can really offer for the character. Yeah, I know the "badass female cop" might be an eye rolling character for some people, but, in this case, it's totally justified, because Tuuli can easily pull it off.

Here's what I'll say about this episode. It's really sad to see a show you once enjoyed so much become so bad that it's not just a shadow of itself, it's a shadow of the shadow of itself. Long running Hollywood series are prone to this because, eventually, the writers run out of ideas, and this show is not immune to that. This episode was an attempt at a novel idea for a hostage situation, but it flopped so badly that, like the criminals in this episode, the writers had no idea what they were doing. At least the criminals were being honest, I'll give them that. Compounding the stupid criminals were the stupid police officers, including Stupid Hicks and Stupid Bennett. Right now, there's just nothing redeemable at all about the characters and the narrative at all. The only way the narrative moved forward was by Hicks being so stupid that he sabotaged his whole career by giving in to his emotions, a stark contrast to the calm, composed Commander he used to be. I guess Hondo's hotheadedness rubbed off on Hicks in the worst possible way. Then again, Bennett was the classical "obstructionist bureaucrat" whose own stupidity nearly blew the case wide open. Once again...if it weren't for 20 Squad miraculously figuring things out...the case would have went sideways very quickly. Maybe it ought to have been. I have always complained that this show struggles with providing the team with real adversity, usually because they're too chicken to put the characters in actual peril. This just reinforces the idea with an episode that, in real life, likely goes sideways because the cops are never this good. Sure, there's the ongoing plot of Hicks' job now hanging by a thread...but Hicks had to be stupid to get to that point. What would have been better was, in the show's final (?) season, to have a case blow up in 20 Squad's face and have the team deal with the fallout. You could still wrap it all up with a nice bow at the end...but tough cases and adversity would be a real reason why officers might re-examine their career choices and thus opens the door for possible stories for the finale. If nothing else...I would expect, eight seasons in, for the show to rock the boat a little and try things it never did before. Instead of doing what it's doing now and just recycling the same old shows with the same old tropes, throwing in lazy twists to make us think the writers are "still trying". Maybe it is time for the show to call it quits once we've reduced it to that.

I'm sure someone in the writers' room- maybe even showrunner Tia Napolitano- looked at this episode and said, "This is gonna be good!" They couldn't be further from the truth. I won't really bother with recapping the episode because it was pretty much filler all around. What I will do is raise two topics. One, as much as I hate the "shady obstructionist company" plot (which is not just cliched but also patently stupid and terribly unrealistic), Violet may be a wild card here...though I don't know if it helps the story. Violet will either side the company and break Jake's already multi-time broken heart again, or Violet will be the one to make the shady company less shady...making this story predictable. Do writers even try anymore? Two, I'll just lay this out there: Can the show survive another edition of Stupid Bode? I've said it before and I'll say it again- Bode refusing to give up his criminal past isn't a character flaw, it's a sign of narrative malaise. Because it's a clear sign that the writers are so bereft of ideas that the only way they can see a path forward is to just go down the same paths they went through before...and for what? Sure, recidivism is a thing...but I feel like Bode has come along so far that Bode getting back into crime is just a regression of the character. There's no growth, nothing gained...just a character going through the motions, setting the cycle for rehashed storylines because the writers can't come up with new ones. I feared that, when Manny was only going to be at Three Rock for a year, Bode was going to be the show's target to put back in there, because this show seems to think a main cast member needs to be a Three Rock inmate at all times. Please show...I would hate to be right.

I should make an addendum to what I previously wrote, in that the idea of the title of "Count" being associated with vampires is a modern invention. In real life, "Count" was a noble title used throughout Europe, not just in Transylvania (which is now in modern Romania but historically has ties to both Hungary and Romania). The man most commonly associated with "Dracula"—Vlad the Impaler—was never a Count. He was a Voivode (Prince) of Wallachia (modern southern Romania), not Transylvania. However, Vlad was born in Transylvania, spent time there, and used the title "Dracula", which originally meant "Son of the Dragon"—a reference to his father’s membership in the Order of the Dragon. Over time, the name Dracula was also interpreted as "Son of the Devil", due to Christian associations between dragons and evil. Most of the modern vampire imagery does not come from historical Vlad but from Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel "Dracula", later made famous by the 1931 Hollywood film. Stoker drew from a wide range of folklore—not just vampire legends—when creating Count Dracula. There is no definitive real-life inspiration for Dracula, though some scholars believe his physical appearance was inspired by Henry Irving, a British actor who was Stoker's employer and a major influence on his writing. However, there is no direct evidence that Vlad the Impaler played any role in shaping Dracula’s character. In fact, Stoker never once mentioned Vlad in his extensive notes. The connection between Vlad and Dracula was made years after Stoker’s death, when researchers noticed the shared name and assumed a historical link. Instead, Stoker came across the name "Dracula" in a history book about Wallachia, where it was noted that the term was linked to both dragons and the devil. As for why Dracula is a Count rather than a Prince or Voivode, this was a common convention in Gothic literature. Writers often used aristocratic villains, and Counts were the perfect choice—wealthy and powerful enough to be intimidating, yet not burdened by the responsibilities of higher-ranking nobility. This made them ideal for mysterious figures who lived in isolated castles filled with dark secrets. Stoker likely followed this tradition, making Dracula a Count for narrative convenience and because noblemen were already linked to supernatural horror. In short, modern vampire stereotypes, including Count von Count, largely stem from one man- Bram Stoker- who combined history, folklore, and Gothic tradition to create the definitive vampire archetype. The real history behind Dracula is far more layered and nuanced than the popular image of a caped, fanged Transylvanian nobleman.

Count me in (pun may or may not be intended) as among those who thought "Count von Count" was simply based on a clever play on words. While I'm not sure if the vampiric folklore played a part in forming the character, it's wild to think about that added dimension, intended or not.

I really believe viewer outcry led to the S6 cancellation reversal, since I think that decision wasn't really grounded in the numbers. In S6, it was still among CBS' highest rated shows, so it was not a cancellation that made sense. The only reason why it was cancelled then was because the two studios that produce the show (Sony Pictures and CBS) stopped their renewal negotiations before reaching an agreement, when both knew if they could make the numbers work, the show could still work for them. The fan outcry forced them back to the negotiating table and made them figure out an agreement. Now? I'm not sure there's a case to say there's a way the negotiating math works. S.W.A.T. is among the lowest rated shows. It deserves cancellation. There's no amount of studio math that will make it work for another season. If another network picks it up, it's only doing so as a PR stunt. Whereas, perhaps, in S6 was in a case where losses could be reversed, that situation doesn't exist this time around. EDIT- I don't mean to be trashing the show too much. It had a great run, since a lot of shows don't ever get close to a sniff at eight seasons. However, I feel like all the posturing by Shemar Moore and its producers are just theatrics at this point- Hollywood math has spoken and there's nothing to save, so they're wasting their time.

Well, if the show is going to bait other networks to save the show by using the obvious manipulation tactic of making its audience angry that the show doesn't have a proper ending, then maybe it really does deserve to get cancelled all along. I get it. They're mad that CBS pulled the rug out from underneath them and cancelled the show basically without warning. However, it is the highest mark of pettiness and creative bankruptcy to exploit the audience's anger by using it to dare another network to continue the series. Not only is it risky- because you have no guarantee that another network will save the series- it's the ultimate show of contempt for the audience because you didn't think we were "worthy" enough to get a proper ending for the show. That's no way to say "thanks", especially to the people (like me) who were there since Day 1.

Do any adults write for this program anymore? Because, I gotta say, Deacon, Tan and Dobes all sounded like overgrown tweens in this episode, crying and whining to each other in a failed attempt at "showing emotion". Oh, and how convenient that Bakersfield PD just happen to be so cheap that Deacon and Tan have their out with a cheap detonator so the show can avoid doing any heavy lifting and providing some real adversity for the team with Dobes' lawsuit. The case- and Devin Gamble's subplot- were no better. I'm sure that what Hicks did- which was interfere in an Internal Affairs investigation- would get him fired in real life. That may be where the show is going anyway, but it's frustrating because you'd expect someone as experienced as Robert Hicks to know better than to literally strongarm an IA operative just to quicken the resolution of an investigation that was likely going to resolve in his favour anyway. I know they want to make Hicks look like he's some kind of savvy "dealmaker" but what he did was essentially a career suicide mission. Well, considering last week that Gamble went on a literal suicide mission, I guess I shouldn't be surprised anyway. As for the case itself...what else is there to say other than "blah"? It's the same cookie-cutter case, with slightly different details and slightly different baddies. They're still after shiny things, they're still so ruthless "they don't care who they kill to get what they want", they're all still stupidly loyal to their cause and their group, and they all still have the situational awareness of a deer caught in the headlights despite being "highly trained operatives". It's like this show doesn't even try anymore. Should I give the show credit for its swerve involving the Russian Columbian museum official who wanted to bring the artifacts home to her unnamed indigenous tribe? No, because it was still contrived, it was still ultimately stupid and she was still a criminal who killed people in her wake. How Hondo could have a lick of sympathy for her, I just don't know. I know this episode aired a day after the unfortunate news that the show is cancelled and won't be back next season (it's a good bet on that front), but with writing like this, I think the writers have already mentally cancelled this program and they're just riding out the string so they could move on to bigger and better things.

"Is that the light at the end of the tunnel or is that the light of an oncoming train?" Before I go on, I do actually think this was an enjoyable hour that mostly kept my attention. It was nice to see Jake and Violet and Bode and Audrey blossom and Gabriella maybe has a new partner in Finn. I also have to say that the show is playing all the right beats in the tragedy of Walter Leone. Man, is Walter's decline just absolutely heartbreaking. There's no other way to describe it. ...but... This episode seemed to set up some potentially perilous storylines for Bode/Audrey and for Manny, and I'm not sure it's just those characters who will feel the peril but the show too. For one, I doubt Manny is going to die, but the show seems to want us to think that. Even then, I'm not sure it's a great narrative choice- a death for Manny in this way feels random and sudden, and it would feel very cheap. Not a worthy end for a character who has been integral to the show from the start. The bigger problem is Bode and Audrey and those drugs. I have to question Bode's wisdom for carrying the drugs on him as a way of making sure he doesn't relapse. It's kind of like a recovering alcoholic who keeps a bottle of wine on their desk without ever opening it- being so close to the source of the temptation is not going to make you resist the urge to give in to the temptation. It's just going to be a constant trigger to get you to give in to the temptation once more, because your brain sees what is being tempted with all the time. Now, maybe I'm wrong and this will all work out...but the show laid the prospect of a relapse heavily for both Bode and Audrey, so I have my concerns. In principle, a relapse storyline may not be a bad thing. Anyone battling addiction knows relapses are possible and many who try to break from addictions will suffer a relapse. There's nothing wrong with that. ...but... This is a show that has already torpedoed Bode with him making a terrible decision before. A show whose writers derailed their positive momentum previously with a completely imbecilic storyline choice. So, while a relapse storyline can be great in the right hands, do I trust that the writers are great enough to write a relapse storyline that doesn't derail its characters and doesn't send this show down the path of a recycled storyline that it had already tried- and failed at- before? (Oh, and Audrey relapsing instead of Bode doesn't mean the show has learned from its mistakes...it just means they're transferring them to another character) What this all means is that, with eight episodes (I presume) to go, the show is now at a crossroads. One where the writers have to decide if they're actually capable of writing newer, engaging stories with its characters that charts new territories for them or if they're just an also-ran production so bereft of ideas that the only storylines they have are the ones they constantly recycle. We will see.

I guess that's it. Makes me wonder why they didn't just end it last season. This is a mess. 😭😭😭😭 'S.W.A.T.' Canceled (Again) By CBS After 8 Season

So Season 18 will tell the story- or is supposed to tell the story- that S16 was supposed to tell? Do I have that right?