Danielg342

I've actually thought that would happen right from day 1- I've said it a few times on the forum already. I cringed at the thought because it felt so predictable for me...but given how much hatred Lizzie has been getting, maybe I shouldn't cringe.

They have been working together for over a year and a half...so I could buy that they have some level of comfort with ech other. So I wasn't bothered by Aram's card.

It's tough to answer the "national security" question because it was poorly written to begin with- a lot of sensitive information may have been leaked, but Lizzie volunteered most of it. I do believe the judge asked Lizzie what part of her case involved national security, which is out of his bounds- the only thing he should be interested in was whether or not Lizzie was on that boat and whether or not her or Samuel Alekko killed the Harbourmaster. She can scream "this is a matter of national security" but the judge can quite rightly say that whether or not she was on that boat isn't national security. Her work on the boat might be a matter of national security, but her presence on it is not- and he should have only asked questions to see if she was there, that's all. It's why I hope there's way more to this story than just Connolly and Denner bickering at each other in court, because this could have been resolved much easier: -All Lizzie should have been asked was where she was that day, what reason she had for being on that boat and who killed the Harbourmaster -All Cooper should have been asked was whether or not he authorized that mission and whether or not the Harbourmaster was authorized to be on that boat -All Alekko needed to answer to was his whereabouts and how he witnessed the killing -The Harbourmaster's superiors should also have been asked what the Harbourmaster's assignment was that day, and what protocols he would have had to enter the boat if need be It could have been a simple, straightforward solution that could have used Tom- who would be, in this case, really the only one who could prove that Lizzie didn't kill the Harbourmaster. Instead, we got a story where Lizzie divulged secrets to someone unauthorized to hear them, secrets that would be useful to a lot of shady people- people that might want to kill Red or Tom, or even now her- so there absolutely needs to be a payoff. Or else "Judge Recap" really will be a waste of time.

I kind of already think there's a show that's "CM as if it were on HBO", and that's Wire in the Blood. It was a British show and involved a single profiler (Tony Hill) working with a "major crimes unit" of a fictional UK city, so other than the fact the profilers weren't a "national unit" (which in Britain's case would be the National Crime Agency) that traveled around the country and the local detective was actually a major character, it was essentially CM with more blood, gore and nudity. Now, I only saw one episode- the second episode, "Shadows Rising" (which, like the first three episodes, was a two-parter)- but I did actually enjoy it. However, it is not for the faint of heart. You had one shot where a naked woman was seated, legs spread apart, with her throat slashed. The plot involved teenage girls going missing, where they'd meet an adult male. have consensual sex with him and see that guy bash their head against a wall before leaving them chained inside a cage where they'd starve to death (I think they'd also be sexually assaulted but I'm not sure we saw those assaults). That wasn't the worst part. No, worse than seeing a teenage girl with this huge bloody bruise on basically a quarter of her head (blackening her eye) was the shot of a dog that had its throat slashed and left to die in the bathtub. Yes, a dog- and a tiny one too (I believe it was a Yorkshire terrier). Apologies for the squick, but I needed to show how far the show was willing to go. Now, I will point out Wire in the Blood is marvellously written and all the squicky stuff wound up making sense in the end- this wasn't shock value for shock value's sake. It certainly wasn't all easy to watch, but you don't sit there thinking "why did they need to do that?" CM on the other hand...considering that Erica Messer has flat out stated that she wished the show was on HBO just so the characters could be darker, something tells me that the writers themselves would love to be there too just so they can be darker too. I fear CM on HBO would be a show that's even worse with torture porn than it is now, considering that on cable, there are no limits. Think about it: -Instead of "X" being about a guy who sells arms and legs, why not a guy who cuts off, um, "private parts" and sells them? -Instead of the murder of the dog in "The Apprenticeship" being done off camera, you'd see it done in plain sight -"The Itch" would likely be filled with shots of naked bodies with bugs crawling all over them -We'd have far more rapists, and more brutal ones too -"Breath Play" would likely be more brutal, and maybe not involve strangulation but something even squickier -"Lockdown" might show a prison rape or two, and actually show that man's scalding death -Morgan would be naked in just about every episode...and so too would Garcia -Kids would be killed more regularly, and likely also be killed on-screen (or at least their dead body would be shown) -People would likely get dismembered on-screen -We'd get far more sex, and graphic sex, with killers interrupting them from time to time -We'd likely see necrophilia in all of its...um, "glory" ...and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's other "crazier" stuff that the writers could think up that I'd never dare of thinking of, and I shudder to think what they may be. I'm pretty sure the only thing a CM on HBO would spare us would be an actual depiction of pedophilia or bestiality, since I'm sure the suits in charge would contend that the wider public wouldn't want to stomach those stories, but I fear not even that may happen. All it takes to show pedophilia would be having an 18-year-old actor or actress that "looks young" and the writers could have their Lolita knock-off. So I'm pretty glad that CM is on CBS, since we're spared the worst. Perhaps if we still had Jeff Davis or Edward Allen Bernero I might think differently, since they knew how to craft stories that made sense despite squicky moments, but all bets are off with Messer in charge. ...and this goes to a wider point that I have- that network TV has to have better writing than on cable. I'm not saying that cable doesn't have good or even great writers, but I do think a cable writer can be given more latitude to be "lazy" since on cable you can rely on actual gore and nudity for shock value and eyeballs and thus you don't have to actually write a decent story. On network TV, you can't just throw up a pair of breasts and guarantee viewers- you actually need to have good stories, because you can't rely on a cheap thrill to draw people in. Thus, on network TV, you actually have to have good writers, people that can write good stories without needing shock value, and preferrably ones where the audience doesn't even notice that you've written a "clean" version of an event. On cable, "decent" can be good enough, because if the story isn't that good...well, at least you can throw up a pair of breasts.

I will point out that this show has actually been fairly even with the male and female “fanservice”- in addition to shirtless Ressler and Tom, we've also had Lizzie in her underwear a few times during the series (the latest being 2.01), Samar Navabi in that tiny, low-cut black tank top in 2.01 and Lizzie's “body double” sending a message to the sniper wearing nothing but a black bra and panties.So, while maybe one could criticize the show for gratuitous sexualization (I'm not...it could be worse), at least no one can say that it's only been one gender that's been the target of it.

Wow. Can't believe I got it so close...maybe I should be a Blacklist writer. :p One thing I would say is that I believe this show could be a wonderful show to explore "what does it mean to 'do the right thing'?" The entire premise involves pairing one of the world's most dangerous criminals with one of the world's most respected crime fighting units (the FBI), so it's perfect to explore the question about "which way is the right way to justice- the legal side or the illegal side?" Unfortunately, the series dropped the ball by making the FBI essentially useless, so we're almost likely to never see the "legal" side ever score a real triumph. Even if one episode did show the FBI's methods succeeding over Red, I'm afraid we're in too deep on the "Red always wins" side that a FBI victory would just appear hollow. Which is kind of what I feel about this episode. I liked it. I liked it a lot. Maybe on a better written series, it'd be a "game-changer", something that gets the viewer to ask questions and wonder whether or not everything they knew about the world they lived in can still apply. Unfortunately, on this show, the bad guys seem to always be the winners with all the right tools and gadgets, with the good guys just essentially going along for the ride and getting used. We didn't see much on this show that we hadn't seen before. An episode before we had the FBI kidnap someone because Red needed to interrogate him. Lizzie spent the first half of this season holding Tom hostage and basically allowing him to kill Eugene Ames (thanks show, for pounding his name into my head!). We've had Ressler break his thumb just so he could get some prescription drugs to feed his addiction. Then we've had Cooper interfere with not just this "trial" but also another trial, at Tom Connolly's behest, all in exchange for a "favour", as well as Cooper at least threatening a man in interrogation with violence by turning the camera off. (An aside- it's interesting that the prospective Attorney General who saved Tom was also named Tom...makes me wonder if that was done on purpose) That was just Season 2 (I'm sure I missed a few points but I'm tired). Season 1 saw Lizzie and Ressler join forces to steal a diplomat's credentials just to engage in their own heist. Ressler then forced his friend to commit seppuku at gunpoint after his friend caused the death of his just reconciled-with ex-fiance. Meera Malik and her obsession with "enhanced interrogation techniques"- and the theft of classified information right off of Cooper's desk. Lizzie with the kidnapping and fights with her then husband Tom. Then finally there's the reveal in "The Judge" where the Cooper of Season 2 wasn't out of character, literally beating a confession out of Alan Ray Rifkin. ...and we haven't started with all the things that Red has done that the FBI just, well, "allows" to happen. There's just so much blood on everyone's hands that it may be understandable if the viewers are little confused as to who "the good guys" really are. Which is why this whole "he has a name! It's Eugene Ames!" business rings rather hollow. The show has spared no expense to cast just about anyone- male or female- as simply a pawn in Red's game, with the lives of characters being rather irrelevant. I suppose one could argue that the poignancy of Ames' name being pounded into our heads is the show's way of perhaps acknowledging its past faults, but there's nothing to suggest that it's going to start getting seriously reflective and make everyone- Red included- wonder why death and destruction is the only answer. Next week, we're going to go back to ruthless killing with everyone shooting first and asking questions later, without anyone learning the lesson that the people they're killing actually had lives that need to be respected. Not that I think the "mindless action" is a bad thing- it just wouldn't be an "action" drama if people weren't getting killed left right and centre- I'm just not sure it's really a great venue to lecture people about the importance of human life, considering that the show has been so cavalier about respecting those lives before and likely will in the future, rendering all this "Eugene Ames" stuff unimportant. Okay, maybe in all of this there's a great "character moment" for Lizzie where she learns, upon going along the path to being a criminal, that she can't feel too guilty about the people she killed...but something tells me she already knows this meaning we really didn't need a whole, elaborate "Harbourmaster plot" to drive this point home. A single episode where she blows away someone and later regrets it would have had the exact same impact. I did like seeing Tom Keen. I'm starting to think he's the show's most compelling character since you never really get a sense of who he really is, except for the idea that, deep down inside, he just might be the only one who really has a conscience in all of this. He may be a career criminal and he may have a lot of blood on his hands- but he seems to be the textbook definition of "I need to do what I need to do" given his selfless act for Lizzie (sure he was goaded but I got the impression that he was going to do it anyway) and how much he tells Lizzie to be wary of Red, as opposed to Red who may have moral objectives but absolutely no issues with committing heinous acts. I also liked seeing Reed Birney (Connolly) and John Finn (Justice Richard Denner) square off- there was a lot of sparks there and that helped liven the episode. I also thought, as a stand-alone episode, it was very effective at writing the internal struggles in the pursuit of justice, with Denner's headstrong pursuit of justice in the killing of Ames, Lizzie's acknowledgement that her act was wrong and her wish to atone for it, Connolly and Cooper both fighting to maintain the integrity of their investigations and finally Red telling Lizzie she's not donating to Ames' daughter's college fund out of genuine remose but really to assuage her own guilt. It was well-written, all of it (except for some pacing issues), since no one was ever really painted as "right" (well, Red was never shown to be "wrong" but he was more of a support player in all of this, not a key contributor). I almost think you could base a wonderful pilot off of this episode, because if you wanted to do a show where you truly do explore "right vs. wrong", this episode was a great way to start. Problem is, this was an episode for this show, and while it may be poignant, it just doesn't ring true. I might rememeber Eugene Ames after this- but will the show?

Something tells me the “trial” is never going to happen. Red or Tom or someone else is going to dig up some dirt on the judge or the detective forcing it to be thrown out. Nothing is ever straightforward on this hiwm

From "Anslo Garrick (Part 1)": Donald Ressler: We are not going to live through this... Raymond 'Red' Reddington: I think we will. Donald Ressler: How? Raymond 'Red' Reddington: Have you ever sailed across an ocean, Donald... Donald Ressler: No. Raymond 'Red' Reddington: ...on a sailboat, surrounded by sea with no land in sight, without even the possibility of sighting land for days to come? To stand at the helm of your destiny. I want that, one more time. I want to be in the Piazza del Campo in Siena. To feel the surge as 10 racehorses go thundering by. I want another meal in Paris, at L'Ambroisie, at the Place des Vosges. I want another bottle of wine. And then another. I want the warmth of a woman and a cool set of sheets. One more night of jazz at the Vanguard. I want to stand on the summits and smoke Cubans and feel the sun on my face for as long as I can. Walk on the Wall again. Climb the Tower. Ride the River. Stare at the Frescos. I want to sit in the garden and read one more good book. Most of all I want to sleep. I want to sleep like I slept when I was a boy. Give me that, just one time. That's why I won't allow that punk out there to get the best of me, let alone the last of me.

I think if CBS is smart, S11 becomes a done deal. They got burned once on a spinoff so I'm sure they don't want to get burned again, so they're obliged to keep CM on the air in case the spinoff tanks. Of course, they could get gutsy and make CM end at S10, because they really do believe in the spinoff...but if that gamble fails, they'll need to find another moneymaker at Wednesday at 9PM and we know those aren't easy to find.

Therein lies the double standard: Dexter can slice and dice others to heart's content and be hailed a hero, but the best Todd Manning can do is get a mixed reaction. Not being much of a soap fan I didn't know the Manning story until I read up about it, although I will point out a few things: 1) Manning's story wasn't planned as such from the outset, only being changed as producers realized audiences liked the character 2) Manning's story came in the mid-90s, arguably before “anti-heroes” like Dexter became a thing, especially on TV. Would that mean if someone tried the Manning story today that they'd succeed in creating a likeable character? That's an open question. I think what it boils down to is that I think an audience can rectify killing since we can accept certain people (like, paradoxically here, rapists) “deserve” to get killed yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a situation where someone “deserves” to get raped, if you can find one at all. (Maybe you can get away with a period piece where the hero conquers a scumbag's kingdom, as in ancient times, raping the king was the last act of humiliation done to him by an army that just successfully conquered his kingdom. I still think it's a mighty big “maybe” though) I admit, the redemption storyline is a bit of a personal one for me. I've never raped anyone nor would I even want to, but I've been in situations where I've been misunderstood and the only reaction I ever get is being told I'm a complete monster. I can't tell you what that does to someone's psyche. We talk at length about how society shouldn't shame promiscuity (and I'd agree) but no one really talks about how society shames the socially awkward. I'm not looking for a pity party, but I think it would be nice if just once Hollywood acknowledged that not everyone who “acts inappropriately” is someone that needs to be shunned forever. The other part of the rape story is that you never get a “real” depiction of what it's like for investigators to actually investigate a rape. I remember when the Jian Ghomeshi scandal first broke there was a post going around Facebook that, while not actually declaring him guilty, essentially did, with a lot of other people wanting to do away with the accused's rights to due process in general. I waded in, against my better judgement (it was going around Facebook, didn't think I could let it go), said that we can make things better for victims to come forward without ditching due process, and I even pointed out how it could be done. Someone inevitably played the “victim card” and you can tell how well the rest of the thread went (I'm still upset it was used as a shutdown tactic- I have all the respect and sympathy for victims in the world, but it's not right to ask for a pity party just to stifle legitimate discussion all because “it's not pleasant to hear”. It makes the person look self-important and that's no way to garner any kind of sympathy for their cause). All this stuff is what makes me think “if only Hollywood could write a rape story that treats all angles with respect and sympathy.” It makes me think that when we look at rape as a society we look at it purely from an emotional standpoint and not from a logical one. I'm not dismissing that there are police officers who don't take an accusation seriously, because that does (sadly) happen, but we also seem to forget in the milieu that 99.9% of rapes don't leave witnesses or much in the way of valuable evidence. We can get around those problems only if we start looking at things logically and not emotionally- and I think that starts with an “honest” evaluation of the subject, at least on TV (I've tried with my own writing but I'm not Hollywood so I'm not that influential). Not everyone will be happy, but I think if the effort is honest then it can be acceptable. Truth be told, I don't think there's a better venue to explore it than CM. We're supposed to be about exploring crimes and what it means for the perps and the victims...what better way to be a trailblazer than to get back to its roots here?

Perhaps I don't watch enough cable, since on network TV at least I don't see too many rapes...but that's semantics anyway. Normasm, I think we can both agree that rape depictions are hardly accurate and on point- far too often, it's the old "man leaps from the bushes and attacks an unsuspecting woman" when we all know the vast majority of rapes are far different from that. (Although it should be pointed out the "man in the bushes" was a real person from time to time...this was Paul Bernardo's modus operandi in 1989) I think we've hit the nail on the head by determing what's wrong is that Hollywood does not treat rape in a sensitive or realistic manner- it's about titilation, it's about cheap thrills and, ultimately, it's all about shock value. There's no thought about what the victim has to go through or the difficulties law enforcement has in achieving successful prosecution (which is the unfortunate reality)- rape is glossed over, treated as "yet another act", when it should at least carry the same weight as a murder. Rape has the same effect, the only difference is a murder victim doesn't have to live after the ordeal. As far as what criminals would commit rape- well, I'd disagree that all killers wouldn't rape, but I fear I'd just be going in circles. I will ask, normasm, is the number of rapists on CM too high or too low? When it comes to creating a criminal, I would be able to buy that a character predisposed to being unhinged with violent tendencies would have the capacity to commit a violent, forcible rape- it's within their wheelhouse, so to speak. As for more "suave" characters, like the mob boss, they'd likely use more subtle tactics, like manipulation or passive-aggressive tactics to "change" the victim's mind, which, at least technically, is rape. I'm not saying that all criminals would be like this, but I do think TV should allow more criminal characters to have rape in their repertoire. Far too often the rapist is depicted solely as a rapist, either as a small one-off character whose only function is to commit the crime itself and then get caught or as a serial rapist whose only objective is to create terror for the story (before getting caught). To me, that gets boring and, at least a few times, I'd appreciate a better-rounded character. Lastly- and I'll get everyone disagreeing with me on this, I'm sure- but I'd like to challenge that someone who rapes can't be "redeemed" or be a protagonist. As much as most rapists are likely never going to want to atone for their acts (nor will they stop- many rapists have multiple victims before getting caught), I'm sure there's at least a few who would have remorse about what they did, like a few killers do. I recognize it's a challenge and would be very difficult to pull off effectively, but I think at some point, it can be done. If we're willing to allow killers to be redeemed, I think eventually we can allow a remorseful rapist to get redeemed as well. Perhaps the only way it could work- for now, anyway- is if you avoid a violent encounter and instead use a case of "misunderstood" sex- it's still rape but it'd be "easier" to digest. Maybe you make the one seeking redemption a kid at the time of the encounter and you can throw in the "he was young and stupid" card. Or maybe I'm just off on the deep end...but, I do know stories can't get better unless we challenge them to try things a little differently.

Reminds me of a song I heard once at Scout camp: "Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair. So he changed his name to Ed Asner and moved to Hollywood."

I think that would be a welcome change, and it would make more sense. Plus it could allow for some inter-team drama where a teammate might feel “snubbed” from having their cases rejected, and it could make for a great episode if the case that was snubbed was the one the team really should have gone on. I'd also like to see a bit more episodes like “Damaged” or “The Crossing”, where the team takes on different cases, because that would be realistic too.

Allow me to say a few things here: 1) Cobalt Stargazer that video was hilarious. Sums up my view of HBO rather well. 2) On originality: wanted to bring this up before but the post got massive. I agree that I want my crimes to be grounded in reality and not done with the intent of “out-squicking” another writer. I also believe that, in the crime genre, there's little that can be done that hasn't been done before, making it that much more important to develop interesting characters and deeper stories, because you're not going to re-invent the wheel at this stage. 3) I think there's a world of difference between criminals who commit crimes because they had to “deal” with someone who wronged them, “career” criminals like a gang leader or a mobster who view crimes as a “means to an end” (and even there, I'd find it hard to believe that every single one of those wouldn't rape if given the chance to, even if it's more of the “coerced sex” variety than an actual violent act) and the criminals on CM, who are as depraved and demented as they come. The whole premise behind CM is that they profile the lowest of the low, the ones who have such a warped view of their wants and desires that they have no respect for human life. Let's face it, the CM criminals are not ones that other criminals would aspire to be. 4) I'm not saying that every criminal on CM should be a rapist. I understand, every killer has their “thing” and for some, rape might not be a part of that. I just think that the number of rapists on CM is rather low, especially given how many times it's implied the UnSubs are committing sexually-based crimes and seem to have their victims at their mercy. 5) I've never heard rapists in general having a hard time in prison, just child rapists. There's a thread on Reddit that asks former prisoners about this specifically and the former prisoners who responded were all adamant that that rapists don't get special treatment from the other inmates (child rapists are a different matter). Anyway, I know enough people- and not just feminist propagandists who say they exist- who genuinely believe that women “ask for it” when they (insert action/style of dress here) that there are enough people out there who genuinely believe that rape is a valid course of action, even if they may not readily admit it. 6) As far as SVU is concerned, I think of it as a poor example of a show that deals with rape. First of all, right off the bat they tell you that the show is about “the most heinous acts anyone could commit”, so it feeds into the “rape culture” hysteria that rapists are somehow super-duper evil villains with mystical powers that only “dedicated” investigators can catch. Secondly, the show is extremely “black and white” about things, meaning there's little exploration- meaning a lot of times they recycle the same situations only that they may change up who the victims are and how many of them are there. The show doesn't really “talk” about rape, instead making it a simplistic show of “good vs evil” and I think that does everyone- especially the victims- a disservice. Victims often feel like they brought things upon themselves, with many wrestling with whether or not they should go to the police; along with the many who feel that, once they do go to the police, they don't get listened to. Unless it's an arc, SVU really doesn't do that kind of exploration, resulting in a trivialization of what far too many people go through and that's not right. 7) Ultimately, though, I think Hollywood's avoidance of rape has become so ubiquitous that it in of itself has become a cliche. It strains credibility that Hollywood can create all these villains and yet none of them are rapists, as if Hollywood wants to pretend like rape doesn't exist. Well, sorry guys but it does and the sooner you come to terms with that the sooner we might be able to start solving the problems surrounding rape. I'm not saying that every villain from now on should be a rapist- far from it- but I think we need to do more to explore this crime and start a dialogue about it. Maybe, just maybe, if rape victims are given stories about rape victims they can relate to, with those perpetrators being brought to justice, they can start to feel that maybe their own crime can get solved as well. I know, it's not wise to draw your hope from TV land, but never doubt the power of catharsis. We all know fiction can inspire people to accomplish real feats, so maybe if TV starts beating into our heads that, “yes we can deal with rape (in a realistic manner)”, then maybe real life can catch up. We just need to start the conversation first.

I brought up the sexuality angle, and I think you're missing my point. I like sex. I like sexuality. I like sexy characters. Sexy is cool, interesting...I don't find it offensive in the slightest. However, when the work I'm seeing is not porn, I do expect more dynamics than just “sexiness”. As it relates to Gotham, my thing is that Bruno Heller (the showrunner), at least at the beginning of the season, seems to think that a female character can only be interesting if she's sexual. It's gotten better but I still think he's got a long way to go- out of the female characters, only Sarah Essen (who is barely used anyway), Fish and the kids don't owe their place in the story to being someone's love interest of some kind (and, in Fish's case, she uses her attractiveness to overpower men and has a thing with Bullock). We don't exactly have a strong female character who's known more for her smarts and not because she's got a great body or is romantically tied to someone. That's the problem I have. I grant that Batman may not have much in the form of strong female characters, but if Heller could create Fish from scratch, he can do it again. I think in Season 2, he might need to.

I think there are a few things going on in terms of the writing in general. As far as sex vs. violence goes, I think there are a few things going on. First, I'm guessing there's perhaps a fear in Hollywood of "not appealing to feminists" so there's this desire not to sexualize women if they can avoid it, out of a perception that women in Hollywood have been sexualized far more than men have. I think it's bunk- both men and women get sexualized just as often, just in different contexts (I once pointed this out to a feminist once and was immediately called a "misogynist"...you can guess how the rest of the conversation went), and the truth is, in Hollywood, if you're not someone younger than 40 with washboard abs, a plump behind, nice flowing locks and a shapely chest (with the requirement that you show these off at one point during your career), you'll be hard-pressed to find any work (those that do only do so out of reputation or type-casting, which is where many gain their reputation in the first place). Perception is clearly not reality in Hollywood, it seems. Secondly, I think there may be a bit of "projectionism" going on. There's at least the belief that audiences want their characters to do things that they only wish they could do, which is why you can have any number of "badass" characters- criminal or lawful alike- who can kick, maim or kill people with reckless abandon but will not under any circumstance, rape someone. Our society treats sex as something special, so we want our characters to respect that, but we'll give our characters a pass for violence because we all have some deep-seated urge to strike out at people who wrong us- we just know we're not on a TV show so we hold back. It's why guys like Hans Landa (Inglorious Basterds), Dexter Morgan (Dexter) and Raymond "Red" Reddington (The Blacklist) can be so popular- they do the things that we only wish we could do. Hence why you can have a lot of blood and a lot of death because there isn't a time where we haven't wished that upon someone (even if we don't want to think about that), but the minute they lay an unwanted sexual hand on someone we recoil- because, the thinking goes, who'd ever want to wish that upon someone? To me, I find both perceptions to be rather bothersome. On the feminist side of things, it'd be a mistake that you'd lose the appeal of feminists because you show sex- like with everything, it's about how it's presented, not just because it's there. Sexy women- and sex in general- shouldn't be something you just throw in there out of the mistaken belief it attracts viewers- it should mean something, like everything else in the story. This also doesn't have to be about feminism either- I think gratuitous sex, just like gratuitous violence or gratuitous anything, is just lazy writing. It's one of the reasons why I hate Game of Thrones (shocker, I know)- it just seems to be an excuse to have women running around allergic to their clothes (that, and the fact that too many people get killed). If I want porn, I'll go look at porn, I don't need to see it on a TV show anymore. I also think it's a fool's game to try to appease feminists or any other kind of group, really: we already know you can't please everyone, so there's no point in trying. I always believe that no matter what story you tell- even if it isn't "politically correct"- if it's true to your heart, you've worked hard and you keep plugging away at it, you will find an audience, because I think any story, regardless of how "unpalatable" it may appear to be, can be done well if it's told right. Perhaps it's wishy-washy, but I believe it to be true. Regardless, trying to do something with the sole goal of achieving a best-seller or the top of the ratings or the Top of the Pops is a fool's game, because it doesn't work that way. Tell the story you want to tell first and work at it so it's to your ultimate satisfaction and the rest of things will work themselves out. It doesn't happen before. Then as far as writing criminals are concerned, I'm troubled with the lack of rape. Not because I have a desire to rape someone- please, that couldn't be further from the truth- but because criminals who don't rape is just patently unrealistic. How believable is it that you have someone who has no issues at all disfiguring or blowing away some dirtbag but somehow can restrain themselves when an opportunity for sex presents itself? You can't have people who so blatantly disrespect the body in one way but won't in another way- reckless is reckless, no matter what. When it comes to an "honourable" criminal, like Dexter or Red, if they're so willing to torture a man who wronged them before killing him, why wouldn't they rape a woman who wronged them before killing them? Because then audiences wouldn't like them? Big deal, I say- they're criminals, you're not supposed to like them. I believe that when you write a criminal, you don't write them with the expectation that they'll get sympathy- you write them with the expectation that they'll be interesting. You can't ask people to side with someone who's already deplorable- but you can ask people to follow along, because we're fascinated with what makes people do the things they do. The many books about serial killers is proof of that. When it comes to CM, specifically, I always roll my eyes at the many criminals who tie up and gag their unsuspecting victims and then do something mundane like slice their throat. Really? You've got a pretty girl- or guy, in some cases- at your mercy- and you're not even going to think about...that (you know what I mean)? How many real serial killers are serial killers and rapists at the same time? Many. On CM, I can only think of three UnSubs who were killers/rapists- Timothy Vogel ("Extreme Aggressor"), William Lee ("Aftermath") and Billy Flynn ("Our Darkest Hour"/"The Longest Night")- though the CM Wiki lists 30 of them, though not all were UnSubs and not all were killers. I'm not saying that every UnSub should also be a rapist, but clearly we haven't had enough of them. The show doesn't have to display the rape on screen, like it doesn't need to show the violence- it can all be implied. Don't get me wrong- I get that, as a society, we're leery about rape and believe it's one of the most heinous crimes out there. I'm not disputing that. However, murder and violent assault are about as heinous, and we've come to terms that they happen. It's about time we realize that rape happens too, and stop trying to hide from it. I could go on some screed about "rape culture" and the ridiculous hysteria surrounding it but I won't. I just know that the more we treat rape like it's "some thing we never talk about" and treat the victims like babies who need to be constantly coddled and "protected" (and never actually provided with real help), it'll just galvanize the rapists even more, not less. A rapist wants attention and power, and the way things are, they know that if they commit the crime they'll get tons of exposure and the knowledge that their victims won't stop thinking about them, ensuring they have control over them forever. I, for one, don't want that, and CM could have been the perfect vessel to explore all that and tell people, "hey, let's fix this problem instead of hiding from it". Instead, like the rest of Hollywood they stick their heads in the sand like the ostrich, and it's a shame. A crying shame.

I think the thing that got me was that we had a worldwide baby auction ring and the headquarters were so conveniently located in Paterson, New Jersey. You'd think that the people operating the ring would design it so that they'd get the baby out of the country as quickly as possible, especially for the guy that won the baby. I get that the writers didn't want to worry about too many things, which is why they kept the story in the U.S., but if that was the case, why didn't they decide to make the story about an American baby ring, instead of an international one? Far too often crime shows have "international crimes" with the criminals so conveniently solely operating in the U.S.- you'd think for such sophisticated criminals, they'd be smarter than that.

It's why I was hoping that he'd at least be disappointed he was killing the women- it would sound more plausible to me that the killings were a mistake, since the women seemed to want him to be there and the crimes seem to be about sex, not murder. The killer was way too inconsistent to be believable.

I don't know how many of you know who Jian Ghomeshi is, but for those of you who don't, he's essentially Canada's version of Rush Limbaugh...if Rush was a hipster and a staunch liberal instead of someone who's as conservative as they get. Anyway, Ghomeshi used to have a radio show until he was fired on October 27, 2014, with the reason being that his employer, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was troubled by rumours that he was abusive towards women, both at work and outside of work. Rumours of his behaviour had dogged him in the past but they never gained any weight until the CBC fired him, and since his firing more allegations of abuse came out leading to him getting charged for sexual assault and battery. Ghomeshi's retort- aside from a simple denial- is that he likes "rough sex" and that whatever pain he inflicted on the women he dated was consensual. If you live in Canada like I do, there's a debate about which side is right, with some believing Ghomeshi actually committed abuse while others believe him and believe his "lifestyle" is misunderstood. Personally, I choose to decide once his trial is finished (it officially starts in a week's time, I believe) before I have my own opinion. Now, given all that, I think in this episode we could have had a wonderful story of what a real, consensual BDSM relationship is like compared to someone using it as a cover to abuse other people. Perhaps it's too "simple" of a story but with the Ghomeshi scandal and Christian Grey's mere presence, I think it's more of a "real" story than the episode we did get (which was inconsistent- the first three victims seemed to consent while the last one was ambused).

I'll just put this here for the record (from the episode thread for 2.15): the thread title should be changed to "Elizabeth (Lizzy) Keen: I suck!" That's ultimately her problem. Some episodes, she's this depraved character who isn't afraid to commit crimes or go to various lengths to seek justice. Other episodes, she's this weakling who gets beaten up, captured and scared by everything she has to do and needs her "Daddy" (Red) to hold her hand throughout. Then there's other episodes where she's stressed and overwhelmed by everything and lashes out at everyone, particularly Red, and, like a rebellious teen, tells Red "Get out of my life! I hate you and I don't need you anymore!" She's just...all over the place, so small wonder Megan Boone is confused. I'd be able to accept it if the other characters noted how erratic she is, but none of them ever do.

I'd die of laughter if they made a Boston Legal reference.

I totally agree (loved those memes). I always had this thought we could have this fun story about a battered wife looking to get back at her ex-husband for what he did but can't- and the team finds it difficult to do- because he's some wealthy philathropist that everyone else wants to protect. We could have even make this guy a magnet for women who don't understand who he really is. As much as I hate the books, exploring what makes Christian Grey tick would be fascinating...and would be the perfect episode for CM to explore.

I also agree that this episode felt like a waste of time, but not because of the clips- the clips were kind of fun- but because in the end, it served no purpose. We knew Liz was going to trial before the episode and now we know afterwards that she is. I have a sneaking suspicion that the judge is working for someone that needs intel on Red, which is why he asked all those questions about Lizzie's work. It's the only explanation that makes sense to me for that entire dance. None of it at all was relevant, and I got the sense, as Lizzie was talking, that she was revealing way too much. If the judge wanted to find out what kind of work she was doing, then he had to subpoena the appropriate person. I'd also imagine, at that point, that there'd be a different judge in charge- like maybe a military tribunal or something, whatever it would be that would have clearance in that matter, just not the outright public system. I did actually find the case of the week interesting, because we learned why Red hired Tom and that Tom turned on him- which is probably why Red came out of hiding for The Pilot. I just think it was a bit too convenient that all Red needed to do to find The Major was find one guy- it seemed easy, too easy. Plus, how did Red know that the Malayasian guy was connected to The Major in the first place? This would have been better if there was an actual investigation, not a simple kidnapping. (Did dig the mention of the Sinaloan cartel...Sinaloa's been one of my favourite places to read about in Mexico and has been for a while) Ultimately, the reason for a "quick" show I think has to do with the fact it's all about next week. Just the title alone says it all and I can't wait actually.

I'm looking forward to this, because Tom has become one of the show's most interesting characters. Hopefully this doesn't mean he's not long for this show.

I mentioned that Fifty Shades of Grey has been accused of perverting BDSM culture. Now, I'm going to preface this by saying I haven't actually read the book but I have read quite a few reviews about it, so that's where I draw my understandings from. Make that of what you will. Anyhow, Fifty is about the relationship between Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey. Grey seeks out someone to be the submissive to his dominant persona, and Steele, attracted to him, decides to take part. However, according to reviews- including several scholarly reviews- Steele seems at times to be a reluctant participant, telling Grey at certain points there are activities she doesn't want to do, but Grey does it anyway. For example, there apparently is a scene in the book where Steele tells Grey she doesn't wish to have sex because she's on the period- Grey decides that he doesn't care and wants sex anyway, so he rips out the tampon from her body and has sex with her right there (yes I know...squicky...). I think Steele winds up enjoying the sex anyway but it doesn't absolve Grey, who ignored what she wanted in the first place. There are also other parts of the novel where Grey tells her what to eat and who can be her friend, with Grey at times yelling at her for communicating with people he didn't approve of. There are also extensive passages where Steele says that she is afraid of Grey and wishes he would leave her alone, but Grey ignores all this. While the only violence, I understand, in the book deals with Grey's BDSM sessions- which Steele willingly (though not always enthusiastically) participates in- looking at the Grey/Steele relationship, it's pretty clear that it's not a healthy one. Allow me to state that I do understand that there are people engaged in BDSM who allow themselves to fall into “dominant” and “submissive” roles- a couple in Britain once gained notoriety when the woman agreed to be “walked” like a dog, chain and all, by her boyfriend. However, even within *that* context, there is still a mutual understanding of basic love and respect- the controlled trusts that the controller will not “go too far” while the controller will only order the controlled around under a strict set of guidelines and only if the controlled is enjoying the encounter- otherwise, the controlled would say a safeword or something and the controller would have to back off, otherwise, the act is not consensual. This is, ultimately, where Grey fails. Yes, he obviously is controlling Steele, but he is not doing it with mutual respect or trust- he orders Steele along and expects her to obey, whether she actually wants to do what he wants or not, and that's just not how a BDSM relationship works. If Grey were, say, to tell Steele that “from the hours of 09:00 to 21:00 I can have sex with you whenever I want, regardless of your menstrual state” and Steele agrees to that, it would be one thing, because at least Steele is allowing that to happen. It's another thing entirely for Steele to repeatedly tell Grey she isn't interested in sex and Grey not only ignores her but forces his way into her...and we all know what that is called. There is, apparently, a contract in the book, but as I understand Steele never signs it- and, in fact, she runs away from Grey and breaks up with him. This was apparently supposed to be her “triumph” over him and apparently is supposed to make Grey appear to be the antagonist, but reviews of the writing imply that Grey is supposed to be alluring, not revolting- when the opposite appears to be true. I haven't read the book so I can't say for sure this is what's happening, but the flack the book gets was the inspiration for the episode, and that's what I have explained in a (rather large) nutshell.