Danielg342

I liked Jake telling Bode that Bode needs to learn that fighting for himself can be good enough, he need not always attach himself to someone else. I also thought Alix West Lefler (Genevieve) did really well in this episode. It was also great seeing Lochlyn Munro again and I appreciated that this episode didn't follow the usual story beat where people campaigning for the shutdown of the show-central institution see how good said institution is and the institution is saved. No, even though Three Rock more than proved their worth to the community, they're still getting shut down. I don't know where the story goes from here and I don't know if it's the right choice, but the show made a move that took some guts, so credit to them. ...but...Billy Burke... Sure, Fire Country may not always know the best about how to use him, but I'd have to say, it's a deal breaker if he leaves, especially if they write him out so cheaply. Burke and Diane Farr really centre and ground this show and give it its heart and soul, so the show should be wise to keep those two around because you can't replace actors like that. Yeah, likely we'll get some more Hollywood health and Vince is going to wind up being just fine despite the scare, just like Sharon was with her kidney (remember that storyline?), but I'd appreciate it if the show gave Vince and Sharon more meaningful things to do other than cheap drama like the kidney and Vince's electric shock. Just like S.W.A.T. before it, we've got three more episodes of Fire Country to go. Will Three Rock survive? Will Bode understand the meaning of life? Will we ever get competent writers on this show? One thing's for sure though- if a tree falls in a forest, at least Station 42 will notice.

I actually thought this was one of the better episodes...then the ending happened. Which only heightens my own fears that, heading into S8, S.W.A.T. has made a giant mess of things that it may not be able to recover from. If this was the final season, Deacon leaving at the end of the episode would have simply been heartbreaking. It may also still be frustrating, since Deacon leaving so abruptly makes the character look bad, but, in a final season scenario, it wouldn't be worth too much getting worked up about because there's only a few more episodes to slog through anyway. In this, new, situation...I can't help but feel with Luca, Street and now Deacon leaving that the show is falling apart. (There was also no Hicks or Nichelle today too, which only adds to the frustration) At this stage, it's almost imperative that, at least, one of those three scheduled to leave don't actually leave. It's also imperative that S.W.A.T. hires another lead character that can shoulder the load- even if one of the old guard returns- because the quality of the acting has declined too much and S.W.A.T. really needs something to freshen it up if it wants a longer run past S8. Some positive signs did come from this episode- Alfaro and Powell looked like they may have some actual chemistry, though I hope they keep those two platonic. We don't need Stris 2.0. As for the actual case itself, it was nice that the show gave another nod to what was supposed to be the hook for the show- Hondo having to juggle his role with the badge with his ties to the street. The show is at its best when it leans into the struggle Hondo has with trying to convince a cynical and leery community that it really can trust the police, because the show has done a brilliant job showing how Herculean that task really is. Hondo must feel that no matter how many steps forward he takes, he's also always taking two steps back. Two military vets who team up and take on the gangs to avenge their fallen daughter is a great way to highlight that, and, as much as you see the pain in the father's face that no one seemed to care about his daughter, you could also see the pain written all over Hondo's face, frustrated that many of the things he still fights against still happens, regardless of everything he does to make things better. It's this kind of wider but personal conflicts that the show has been missing. This was the first case that truly felt like it had some meaning, and the show really needs to have more cases like this. Plus, creating cases that leave a personal mark with SWAT members is an easy way to develop those characters since we get an insight into those characters. Three more episodes for this season, folks.

No, I don't think so either. There's just a difference between completing your task with time to spare so you can go home early and cutting corners on said task just so you can go home early. One is happenstance, the other is laziness. What I was also saying is that, sometimes, when we finish a task, we may not have necessarily finished it. It's not because we were bad at our jobs- it's another matter of us being human, in that we all make mistakes and overlook things. What tends to happen on these police procedurals is that, unless it's a plot point, you never get the protagonists leaving the crime scene thinking they've done their job when they actually haven't. If the task isn't done despite looking like so, one of the protagonists will have a "hunch" and they'll be back on the case, when, in reality, that wouldn't always happen.

I've mentioned it before, I think, but it's something Hollywood seems to always get wrong about every job, at least as far as the main protagonist is concerned. Focal characters are always diligent, punctual go-getters who put in the extra work to make sure they've done their jobs right, even if it means having to re-open a task at the end of the day instead of simply declaring the task "done" and going home. I have no statistics, obviously, but having worked in workplaces with lots of other people, I can safely say that there are very few people who are so dedicated to their jobs that they'll put in the extra mile to get things right. Now, I grant that the amount of people who "hot dog" at their jobs likely depends on the field, and most of my experiences are at low-paying jobs where employee motivation is already a struggle, but, knowing we're all humans, even at so-called "better" jobs, not everyone is going to be on top of their jobs all the time. Even the best will get lazy and give in to the temptation to cut corners, even if it would be disastrous for them to do so. Perhaps there's a good reason why Hollywood makes their characters so dedicated to their jobs. Firstly, a character who is lazy is typically not very likeable, and, secondly, it's not a very satisfying story if plots were always resolved because a character was simply lazy. This goes both ways- for the protagonist and the antagonist. You want your protagonist to succeed because they overcame everything the antagonist threw at them, not because the antagonist got bored halfway through the story. Conversely, a loss for the protagonists would not be impactful if they were not shown trying so hard to do everything they can to succeed at the challenge only to fall short. If the protagonist simply went through the motions and failed because of it, the audience would very much wonder if the protagonist would have succeeded had they actually tried, and they might wonder how serious the challenge really was if the protagonist didn't offer any effort in trying to overcome it. So while it's not accurate for Hollywood characters to be dedicated go-getters, it's a more satisfying story to write them that way.

Here's what was at issue. The appeals court basically stated the following: Harvey Weinstein had no criminal record before the New York trial, so, in the eyes of the court, he had not been proven to have done anything wrong before the trial Despite this, the prosecutor brought forth as evidence the testimony of several women who accused Weinstein of crimes he was not on trial for, and thus were not being tested by the trial at hand nor were they tested previously The jury then based too much of their reasoning for conviction on these untested accusations, instead of properly evaluating the accusations that Weinstein was actually on trial for. It's like this- you've got a murder trial with a defendant who has no criminal record. The prosecutor brings in all these people who testify the defendant committed murder in prior incidents. The prosecutor then says "because all these people said the defendant committed murder before, he must have committed this murder!" Well, you can't base a fair conviction on crimes the accused is not trial for, because those crimes are not being tested by the court. The defendant needs the proper ability to defend themselves, and they can't if they're faced with the prospect of having to answer for crimes they haven't been charged with (since charges need to be supported by physical evidence, not simply on hearsay alone). You also can't use, as evidence, accusations of crimes that haven't yet been tested by the court, since, in the eyes of the court, it is not proven that the defendant actually committed those crimes. Because of the presumption of innocence, since the accusations are not proven, you cannot say the defendant committed those crimes. Now, you are allowed to use character witnesses and use unrelated incidents to establish motive. Getting back to my hypothetical murder case, if part of the prosecutor's case revolves around suggesting the defendant has anger issues and wants to argue the evidence points to the defendant killing the victim in a moment of rage, the prosecutor can definitely bring in people who have witnessed the defendant get violently angry before, because then the prosecutor can prove the defendant can let their anger get the better of themselves. The prosecutor would still have to prove that the rest of the evidence proves the defendant's guilt, but at least the prosecutor can establish part of their case. My guess is that Weinstein's previous trial judge thought that by using the testimony of the women who brought forward the untested allegations, the prosecution would simply use it as evidence that Weinstein was the kind of guy who simply "would commit rape", not as evidence that he actually committed rape. The appeals court ruled that the trial judge erred in this assessment, as that the trial judge didn't stop the jury from using those untested allegations as evidence Weinstein committed the crimes he was actually on trial for. One other tangentially related point- Weinstein and his lawyers brought up the claim that the #MeToo movement unfairly influenced his trial, and there may be something to this. I mean, I really don't know how a jury can be expected to judge a case fairly when, on a daily basis, they're confronted by thousands of protesters who loudly shout at them and implore them to convict. There's a reason why juries are typically sequestered for deliberations- put in a hotel room without TV or newspapers and (I suspect) the Internet, because the judge can't risk the jurors being influenced by anything that would bias their evaluation of the case. How all those jurors- and the judge- can't be influenced by those protesters is beyond me.

Maybe I used the wrong word but it's semantics. The court simply said that the trial judge can't use as evidence the testimony of women who allege crimes against Harvey Weinstein that have not been proven in court. Which is especially important because those allegations were for similar crimes that Weinstein was on trial for. The judge ruled that because Weinstein had no prior criminal history before the New York convictions, it is a grievous error to allow testimony of people who accuse Weinstein of the same crimes as those he was actually on trial for, since it made the jury believe he had committed those crimes before when no court had deemed he had done so. My level of legal expertise is nowhere near a level where I'm in a position comfortable enough to say "the judge got it right" or "the judge got it wrong". I'm only going to comment on what I see. I know there will be people who will read what the court says and find confusion with it, since, in their minds, the "untested allegations" against Weinstein are as true as they can be, but, you have to remember that, in a court of law, if allegations have not been tested in court, a court cannot see those allegations as "true". It'd be like if someone was convicted of murder based solely on testimony of others that the person committed other murders other than the murder they're accused of committing. That's not a conviction that can be allowed to stand, because then you're risking people getting convicted purely on the weight of others simply running their mouths, with what they're saying being, potentially, falsehoods. People should only be convicted of the crimes they're actually accused of, not only crimes that stand simply on hearsay.

I think the problem is that the claims of the women unrelated to the case had not been tested in court, so they were little more than hearsay. It would be like if the judge had allowed testimony from someone who said "Harvey Weinstein is an alien from another planet" or "Harvey is a murderous cannibal"- since there is no proof that happened, you can't use it as proof that Harvey acted in that manner before. It seems to me that Harvey was convicted on little more than Hollywood gossip. That's a poor standard for conviction, and I rightly think the prosecution needs to do better. True justice deserves no less.

😢 😢 😢 😢 😢 Well, I hope for your sake at least he is brought back. I do think there's a high probability of that. Agreed. My guess it'll be someone who is high profile, and maybe younger. I might get behind a storyline where Hondo sees himself- the good and bad- in a new recruit. Oh. My bad. It was Kristin who had cancer- must have confused the two.

Somewhat...I believe Carolyn had cancer, not ALS. Same idea, though. I'm not looking forward to it either, but something tells me that one of the three that appear to be written out- Deacon, Luca or Street- will be back for S8, likely filling the old role that Cortez used to fill (my guess is Deacon because Jay Harrington made a lot of posts celebrating SWAT getting a S8, whereas Kenny Johnson only tangentially acknowledged it and Alex Russell didn't mention it at all). I'm also predicting a new cast member for S8 in a bid to "freshen" the series.

Blah. Great to see Jessica Camacho (Agent Vasquez) again as well as Hondo's joke that kept Deacon honest, but that's about it for the positives. It was a rote case with a stereotypical criminal- women love shiny things, I mean, who knew?- with the rote obstructive bureaucrat who is only there to create artificial drama and arbitrary roadblocks for the heroes, only for said bureaucrat to see the heroes' value in the end. Blah. As for Hicks' storyline with Maggie...for real, show? This has to be one of those storylines the show wrote thinking it was the final season, because why do they have to break Hicks' heart again? Maybe they can pull the same thing Empire did and reveal Maggie doesn't actually have ALS and she has something else...implausible, maybe, but it'd be a happier story. I mean, great for Hicks to be there for Maggie through what will be some painful days ahead, but...for real, show...you can give someone like Hicks a happy story every now and then. Blah. Oh, and no Tan or Powell despite their apparent status as series regulars. At this stage, I don't know why the show bothers to list anyone other than Shemar Moore as a main cast member. Blah.

I'm aware of the sports forum. I'll put it into consideration. I hesitate to put a wrestling topic there since, technically, it's not a competitive sport- it's more appropriately "sports-themed theatre". Then again, the vast majority of wrestling fans are also sports fans, so maybe there is a fit.

Side note- I do wonder why these forums don't have a wrestling forum or at least a topic, considering it *is* on TV. In any case... Could Vincent Kennedy McMahon start his own wrestling company? I wouldn't put it past him. Many thought that McMahon would only leave WWE on his deathbed, so I could see him getting the itch to get back in the game once he's able to do so. The only question I have is whether or not it would work. On top of all the logistical concerns you mentioned- who would broadcast his promotion? Who would invest in it? Who'd be willing to work with him, etc.- the problem with McMahon's hypothetical promotion is that I'm not sure McMahon really has his finger on the pulse of wrestling like he used to. Wrestling punditry is almost universal in its proclamations that Paul Levesque- AKA Triple H- has vastly improved the WWE product since becoming the head of creative in WWE after taking over the role when McMahon was first forced out of WWE in 2021. Plus, I watched almost every WWE program for two years from June 2018 to June 2020, and a lot of that stuff was literally the worst TV I'd ever seen in my life (see Shane McMahon vs. Miz, Rusev vs. Bobby Lashley, The Big Dog eating dog food, the mishandling of The Fiend, etc.). About the only positive out of that 2018-2020 period is that Becky Lynch became a real star during that period (though it was kind of by accident) and women's wrestling grew somewhat by getting a Royal Rumble match, the Mae Young Classic and a pay-per-view of their own, Evolution. There weren't too many other positives, and those that were positives were either moments of serendipity (Kofimania) or they came from ideas the wrestlers made themselves that McMahon approved, like The Fiend and later The Bloodline. So, while I can't say for sure that a new McMahon promotion would fail, I feel that there's a good chance it will, simply because I'm not sure the old man knows what he's doing anymore. If the other stuff that could impede McMahon- like being unable to find a TV partner or investors, or even writers to work for him (remember, Vince used to love ripping up the scripts to his shows and force complete re-writes mere minutes to air time)- then McMahon's poor vision for what wrestling is in the 21st century will likely doom the promotion. It may be good for fits and giggles while we watch it implode worse than WCW did in its final years, but that's about it.

Alix West Lefler- who plays Genevieve- is 12 years old and lives close to where Fire Country shoots (the show shoots in Vancouver and Lefler is from the suburb of Burnaby). I don't know if there's something with the laws or anything but maybe that played into the writers' choice. I know that having actors younger than 18 can cause some logistical concerns and, since Genevieve isn't exactly a major part of FC, I could understand the need to give them an out, even if I don't agree with it.

It does open the narrative possibility of having a story where Genevieve meets her real dad for the first time, which can be a good story if they work it right. It also allows them to write out Genevieve if they want to do so without having to kill her. Personally, I would rather have Bode be Genevieve's actual father than one by proxy because it gives that relationship more meaning, but I can see why the writers went with this choice.

The problem I have with Powell, Alfaro, Cabrera, et all is that I feel I have no reason to care about them. They're just bland "robots" who are just there to execute the plot. Yeah, they may be "inoffensive" but "inoffensive" isn't the same thing as "interesting". I'll grant that, perhaps the characters may get some character building later because the writers wrote this season as if it were the last one, but I also feel that each of the characters should have at least started with some kind of "hook" to get us in to them. To be clear, I'm not saying I need some deep characterization, but I might have liked knowing that, say, Miguel Alfaro is there because his family was ruined by gangbangers so he's a police officer to set things right. I also think the other part is- with all due respect to Niko Pepaj, Anna Enger-Richt and Brigitte Kali Canales- I don't find them particularly that strong as actors. Kenny Johnson, Alex Russell, Lina Esco and Jay Harrington run circles around them and it's not even close. The newer cohort seems fine when all they're tasked with is holding the fort for an episode or two, but I'm not sure I could ask any of them to carry a series or even just a single episode. Which is a big issue. If you're going ask me to watch these actors for 22 episodes, then I want actors in there who will be comfortable taking centre stage. So S8 needs some changes on the cast front, even if Harrington stays. 'Cause I don't just want characters I care about- I want some actors I would genuinely enjoy following too.

I looked at that as more about stopping the fire from spreading as opposed to saving the log cabin. There were a lot of trees surrounding the cabin so it'd be a risk to allow that fire to spread.

I'll admit, now that I know this show is coming back for S8- which I never imagined would be possible- it's hard to really grade these episodes, which were constructed under one context (with the show ending after this season) but must now operate under the new context. I mean, it's possible that S8 may be a "soft" reboot of the series with Hondo, Tan and a whole new cast. Which I'm not sure I'm looking forward to considering how terrible the show has been at developing other characters outside of the initial lineup, but that's the potential reality that I am facing. So let me tell you I'm not looking forward to, at all, Deacon's tentative retirement. If this was the final season, I could get behind Deacon wanting to retire, because the show was ending anyway. Now, with S8 on the horizon, I selfishly want Deacon back next season. Losing both Luca and Street was quite the blow, but losing Deacon too would be even worse. The show is already a pretty bad mess with a bland, boring group of characters. It need not get worse. As for the case itself, Adam Baldwin was fun to watch and I did like that the team had to have a bit of a strategy involved in conducting a proper breach, and the twists and turns felt somewhat natural. Otherwise, it was a large groaner. I'll never get Hollywood's obsession with making characters like the doomsday people into anything other than completely unsympathetic, cartoon-like criminals, because they keep going to that well and, frankly, it's overdone and boring at this point. The Branch Davidians were around 30 years ago, Hollywood...time to come up with a new plot. Oh, and I guess I should say something about Powell seeing her son for the first time. ... OK, that's it. This felt like a nice storyline when I knew the show was ending. Now that the show is continuing and I actually need a reason to care about Powell and anyone else sticking around...well, this son storyline isn't going to cut it. The show needs to do better, far better, if they want me to care in S8.

Well, that was actually fun. It was led by Morena Baccharin and Diane Farr, who were electric together and managed to humanize each other's characters. Yeah, some of the dialogue felt contrived and forced, but they still bickered like they were sisters and the two of them seemed to actually "grow" into each other and form a natural bond, which was great to watch. The only problem is, on a prospective Sheriff Country show, Farr won't (likely) join Baccharin in the cast, just how Baccharin is likely not coming to Fire Country. So their insane chemistry is melancholic, because I don't know how often we'll see it. The story itself was serviceable, even though this felt like more of a police procedural than a "fire" episode. I had thought the deputy would be joining Baccharin on a prospective SC show so I hadn't pegged him to be the ultimate criminal in the end. Still, the story choice felt natural and was the right call. The escaped inmate was far too sympathetic for the show to turn him into an even worse criminal than he actually is. Though...Manny was right. The inmate could have applied for compassionate release and he likely would have gotten it, since, by making it to Three Rock, he was already seen as a "good" prisoner. Of course, if he did that we wouldn't have had an episode. Which is really the only real down point about the whole plot, since this big and glaring plot hole was never adequately addressed. Oh, and for once Bode did things and actually felt heroic without looking dumb. I have to give the writers credit for that. Lastly, I did like the subplot of Genevieve and her science fair experiment. Yeah, there wasn't much to it, but seeing the "family" bond over the exploding volcano was heartwarming. Going forward, I don't know what this means for Baccharin's prospective show or Farr's current show but if the writers wrote more stories like this- where the characters drive the narrative instead of forcing them into their spots- they can really make something special.

Colour me shocked...maybe I shouldn't be. It was still a ratings winner and a proven brand in a TV landscape devoid of both, and arguably the show is cheaper to make now so CBS realized the economics work for another season, and maybe beyond. ...but... Is this right move? Creatively I'm not sure the show has much left. We said goodbye to Street and Luca thinking this was the final season. Potentially, we're saying goodbye to Deacon too, meaning that S8 could have only two original regular cast members- Shemar Moore and David Lim- from the pilot, and three originals if we're counting Patrick St. Esprit (who was recurring in S1 and is practically a recurring character now). So what does it mean for S8? Are we really going to be stuck with a team of Hondo, Tan, Alfaro, Powell and The Reject-of-the-Week from 50-Squad? Or is CBS going to hire a new cast member in an attempt to "freshen" the series? Obviously, I'd rather have Street and Luca back- and even more ideally, Cortez and Christina as well- but I feel like that's a remote possibility. So that leaves me with having to accept the current cast for S8 (who are a really underwhelming group) or accepting whom CBS will hire to round out the cast for S8. A new character could be a great idea but I cringe at what they'll come up with. Are we going to get a sad attempt at "wokeness" where the new character ticks all the "diversity" boxes in a misguided attempt to make the show look "inclusive" and "progressive"? Are we going to get a character who's a Mary Sue that can do no wrong and makes everyone, even Hondo, look like a chump? Are we going to get both? I shudder to think about it. Yeah, I shouldn't throw S8 under the bus before it begins, but usually Hollywood series by this point are not creative goldmines. Shows by this point are all about staying profitable and maintaining the brand, so writers take fewer risks and experiment very little. So I doubt that whatever we'll get for S8 will be much of an improvement, if it will be an improvement at all. I might still watch because I've been here from the beginning and I'll stick it out to the end, but I feel the show's already far past it's peak and they've made a grave mistake extending this further.

I think what they're doing with Eve's story is that the writers are going for a storyline of "Eve needs to learn to loosen up and be more of a people person than a stickler for the rules". It's not necessarily a bad storyline, but it's terribly one-sided. I don't like the idea of Manny losing his job as Captain of Three Rock, but they did have a sound reason to do it- namely that things had become so uneven and so undisciplined at Three Rock that a change in leadership was necessary (the "drug ring", in this context, is more of an "icing on the cake" situation than a standalone reason for action). In such a case, there's was an opportunity for the prisoners- especially Bode- to experience some character growth of their own. They could have learned, through Eve, the importance of teamwork and thus trusting each other on the job, since too many of them- especially Bode- "wild West"-ed things too much last season. At the end, you'd have a storyline where Eve learns that getting worked up about Bode bringing a coffee into camp isn't worth it, but Bode also learns that when Eve tells you "stay on your line and don't run into the burning house", there's a good reason why she's making that order so Bode doesn't do it. There might be those who'd argue that it would be "the end" of Bode's "heroism" but it need not be that way. It would just add another layer to it. Bode would still have his maverick tendencies, and Eve could recognize Bode's instincts are usually good. There could still be drama as he and Eve fight over when Bode's maverick instincts are appropriate, and neither would be shown to be "right" all the time. Bode, too, would also have his own internal conflict over whether he should pursue the immediate or if he should pull back and think of his future ("one more time, Bode, and it's back to jail!"). Yeah, maybe this kind of storytelling requires a level of writing this show hasn't been capable of reaching, but I think they're truly missing an opportunity to give more characters depth by not pursuing this angle.

That was an episode where...things happened. Was there ever a real attempt at piecing together a coherent, navigable storyline? Oh, and nothing else says "this show is bereft of ideas" than by metaphorically shoving Cara into a giant refrigerator. Nice, touching ending, but it's the wrong choice. Not that I would have liked any choice, but I think the show would have been far better off killing Diego and ending the nonsense about him and Gabriella because we all know that Gabby isn't ending up with him so why we now must waste further time with him and Gabby is beyond me. At least Sharon and Vince had a nice moment under the fire truck and Eve is learning on the job. I'm not sure Freddy 2.0 is any more interesting now that I know why he's in jail but at least the show's rounding him out a bit. Still, all in all, this was a fire tornado- a dumpster fire tornado, that is.

They didn't kill him physically, but they practically killed him. I'm not sure which is worse. I'll give the show this much credit in that Kenny Johnson, Shemar Moore et all sold all they could out of that storyline. The beach was a great moment, and so was the retirement ceremony. Everything else...meh. So Alfaro was raised by strippers and, after Powell sounded like she was judging him, decided to make an awkward pass on him because of it. OK then. I also guess Deacon's not retiring- not yet anyway. SWAT needs to maintain their "old guy" quotient, I suppose. As for the case itself, it was a meandering experience with the usual fast pace to feign urgency, flat and predictable twists and turns and clues pulled out of the team's derriere's. At least the story partially made up for the last point by having a heavy involvement from the detective, something the show should have done from the beginning of the entire series. In short, though, this episode was all about Luca. I wished he had a different ending. I wish that his final act as a SWAT member was not him meekly bowing out effectively in a hail of bullets. I wish he, at least, had taken down a few of the gang members before they proved too much for him, so that Luca at least still looks competent on the job even at the end. Of course, I don't like "the hail of bullets" ending anyway because Hollywood uses it too much, especially with older characters. Having Luca decide to quit SWAT some other way- perhaps by realizing he has worth in being Kelly's surrogate father- would have been far more satisfying. Oh well. Time to say farewell, and thanks for the service, Luca. You will be missed.

Ryan-James Hatanaka, who plays Tyler Green, is becoming a series regular next season too: https://deadline.com/2024/02/criminal-minds-evolution-ryan-james-hatanaka-series-regular-tyler-green-1235816897/

I'm not saying I need a woman dressed to the nines with heavy makeup, high heels and a low-cut tight mini-dress. ...but, I'd love to have a lead female character who's named Maggie, is sweet and adorable, likes to doll herself up to the extent that it's practical, is unmistakably warm and approachable and she's considered beautiful and loveable. ...but, she doesn't take any guff, isn't afraid to tackle any situation, isn't overtly whiny or needy, she can kick ass, she's physically strong and she's an effective handywoman. ...and, when she displays her strength, her technical knowhow or stands up for herself, no one bats an eye and/or talks about how it's "unwomanly" of her to be like that. We can quibble on the details, but I essentially want to see more characters who are archetypal "feminine" women who are still practical and fit in with the men and no one thinks it's strange or weird. I can't remember where I read it, but I do recall Geena Davis once saying we could solve a lot of problems with gender portrayals if we take a script that calls for a male detective and do nothing except change the detective's name to that of a woman. That way, the other characters are all looking at this female detective and they're reacting like it's normal. As it should be. I don't think it's too much of an ask. There are plenty of strong women out there who "fit in" with the men and no one bats an eye about it, but they hardly get represented in Hollywood. If you do get "feminine" women, they're almost always damsel-y in some way, and that really needs to change.

*sigh* Obviously I have to see how the character plays out, but learning that her name is Mickey Fox already has me hesitant. Hollywood does this all the time with female characters, particularly ones who occupy roles that are seen mostly as male, like a sheriff. They give the character a name or a nickname that could pass for a male name, and then they craft the character in a brazen attempt to get her "accepted" by the men in the audience. She'll be tough on the outside, have a "take no prisoners" approach...but she also has a warm, soft underside that a few will be lucky enough to see. She'll also dress generally like a guy, but they'll also make sure her attire is somewhat form-fitting anyway...or at least doesn't hide her "female features". After all, Hollywood thinks that, even though she's accepted as "one of the guys" we still shouldn't actually confuse her for a guy. Don't get me wrong- in principle, I have nothing against gender-bending characters, and I accept people like Mickey Fox exist in real life. However, Hollywood doesn't craft characters like Fox in a genuine attempt to explore a gender-bending character- they craft a character like Fox out of the belief that if she's not "man enough" she won't be accepted by the men in the audience. Which is total bunk. ...and, frankly, coming out of this show, I'd expect the writers to do better. Say what you will about how good the characters actually are, but Fire Country at least gives us real, actual firefighters who are definitely women and are named Sharon, Gabby and Eve. Sure, Eve's a lesbian and definitely has a lot of masculine traits...but FC doesn't do anything to hide her femininity at all. She's been shown to be vulnerable and she's had many "girly" moments. Heck, she's more of a true gender-bending character than the likes of Fox have ever been. That said, we still haven't seen Fox in action, and Morena Baccharin is a fantastic actress. She's already played this kind of character before- on Gotham where she was Leslie "Lee" Thompkins who became more badass as the series progressed- and made it work really well so I'll give her a chance to do so here too. However, it's still not a good first impression. Side note- with Baccharin joining the Fire Country fold, does this mean we're due for an appearance by her husband, Ben McKenzie?