S11.E10: The Common Good

[DanaK]

Frank asks Erin to liaise between him and NY Governor Mendez regarding policy reform he can't publicly support, because it goes against police rank and file. Danny and Baez become enmeshed in the world of competitive gaming, and Eddie and Witten suspect a live-in nanny is being abused.

[jabRI]

All right, I'll be the first here.  This was the first time in a long time I was REALLY angry with this show.  Jamie was TOTALLY out of line asking his 'mentee' to get involved even to the extent of 'keeping his ears open'.  I'm sure this was TOTALLY opposite of the intention of the mentorship program.  And then leaving the brother out to dry 'that wasn't the agreement' is totally why NYC young men don't trust the police. HORRIBLE WRITING! sorry, i hate all caps in general, but I was just really upset last night when I saw this. And I'm not downplaying what happened to the innocent bodega owner, I'm just saying Jamie should have used another avenue to get the information he needed.  Did not justify betraying that young man's trust in what he was entering into in the mentorship relationship.

Edited April 3, 2021 by jabRI

[DanaK]

The governor sandbagged Frank with the unexpected changes to the policy bill, but Frank probably should have waited to make his overture until seeing the final text

[bichonblitz]

Ok so I really noticed it this episode.

Frank sitting behind his desk.

Frank sitting at the dinner table

Frank sitting at the kitchen table

Frank sitting at the restaurant. 

We didn't see him get up or walk once. Something definitely going on with Tom. Arthritis? Hope he's ok.  

[EtheltoTillie]

I liked all the stories this week except for the Jamie story. Agree with @jabRI.

[Sarah 103]

Jamie's story was so awful, because his character is not that stupid. He's not perfect, he makes mistakes, but not those kind of mistakes. If you want to do that kind of storyline, do it with another character as the mentor and make Jamie the responsible one who has to undo the mess the first character made. 

I did like Danny's story and wished they had used Sean a bit more. I don't expect them to send him undercover, but it would have been cool if we could have seen more interaction between Sean and Danny. 

[wlk68]

8 hours ago, jabRI said:

All right, I'll be the first here.  This was the first time in a long time I was REALLY angry with this show.  Jamie was TOTALLY out of line asking his 'mentee' to get involved even to the extent of 'keeping his ears open'.  I'm sure this was TOTALLY opposite of the intention of the mentorship program.  And then leaving the brother out to dry 'that wasn't the agreement' is totally why NYC young men don't trust the police. HORRIBLE WRITING! sorry, i hate all caps in general, but I was just really upset last night when I saw this. And I'm not downplaying what happened to the innocent bodega owner, I'm just saying Jamie should have used another avenue to get the information he needed.  Did not justify betraying that young man's trust in what he was entering into in the mentorship relationship.

Basically all of this ... x1000. 

[preeya]

This episode was definitely presented out of sequence. For all intents and purpose Lent is over. Frank says I'm giving up the hot-cross buns for Lent.

Jamie's mentor story was meh.

No masks to be seen anywhere.

The governor is a prick (same as IRL).

Erin keeps getting larger roles and Danny is staying consistent with Mr. Nice Guy.

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by preeya

[Sarah 103]

8 minutes ago, preeya said:

No masks top be seen anywhere.

My understanding is that every show set present day was allowed to decide if they wanted to have the actors wear masks on camera. Bull decided to have the cast wear masks (sort of. sometimes they wear them, sometimes they don't). Blue Bloods decided not to have the cast wear masks.

[preeya]

32 minutes ago, Sarah 103 said:

My understanding is that every show set present day was allowed to decide if they wanted to have the actors wear masks on camera. Bull decided to have the cast wear masks (sort of. sometimes they wear them, sometimes they don't). Blue Bloods decided not to have the cast wear masks.

That's good ↑.

Someone should pass it on to L&O SVU and This is Us.

Edited April 3, 2021 by preeya

[DanaK]

3 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

My understanding is that every show set present day was allowed to decide if they wanted to have the actors wear masks on camera. Bull decided to have the cast wear masks (sort of. sometimes they wear them, sometimes they don't). Blue Bloods decided not to have the cast wear masks.

If I recall correctly, Blue Bloods decided to move past the pandemic, so it’s set “present day” but really some nebulous time in the near future when the pandemic has abated. I believe this was explained in the premiere

[Sarah 103]

3 hours ago, DanaK said:

If I recall correctly, Blue Bloods decided to move past the pandemic, so it’s set “present day” but really some nebulous time in the near future when the pandemic has abated. I believe this was explained in the premiere

You are correct. I was thinking of a show like Young Sheldon that is set in the early 1990s and it wouldn't make sense for them to wear face masks.   

[mtlchick]

16 hours ago, preeya said:

That's good ↑.

Someone should pass it on to L&O SVU and This is Us.

It's a decision by the show's showrunners if they want to stay in the present time and address the pandemic head on like the shows you mentioned or skip past it like Blue Bloods.  This was an interview conducted with Kevin Wade, the show runner from December as his reasons to why.  https://deadline.com/2020/12/blue-bloods-spoilers-recap-coronavirus-whoopi-goldberg-season-debut-kevin-wade-interview-police-cbs-1234649887/

As for the episode itself, it was...sort of ok.  I didn't mind Frank/Erin's (though surprise!  The governor still doesn't like the family), Danny and Eddie were middle of the road, but was very annoyed by Jamie's.  The mentor took advantage of the mentee, and for a moment I thought the mentee was going to die for not being a snitch, but by guilt by association. 

[zapper]

gotta go team Jamie with this one - sorry folks.

Jamie expressly said to his mentee to not ask questions but just keep an ear out. I think that is in line with Jamie's personality and actions from the past when he has done things with the best of intentions, and while protecting those involved (or at least minimizing impact) but it goes wrong and someone gets hurt. This triggers the trademarked Jamie angst of "should I have asked them to do it" with the contractual obligatory "Reagans are right, you did fine, it was their choice"

Personally I think that just being in the mentor/mentee program was the risk that got him beat up - as seen by the gang members harassing/threatening the mentee at the gym before Jamie mentioned "keeping an eye and ear out for things".

My second "team Jamie" is that he clearly said that if the brother comes forward then Jamie would see about getting him leniency. However the brother didn't come forward, and the cops instead burst into the brother's place to arrest him. It is not surprising that by the rules boy scout Jamie holds to what he said and lets the book be thrown at the brother.

 

So I see both actions/reactions as being within character for Jamie. 

[jabRI]

30 minutes ago, zapper said:

gotta go team Jamie with this one - sorry folks.

Jamie expressly said to his mentee to not ask questions but just keep an ear out. I think that is in line with Jamie's personality and actions from the past when he has done things with the best of intentions, and while protecting those involved (or at least minimizing impact) but it goes wrong and someone gets hurt. This triggers the trademarked Jamie angst of "should I have asked them to do it" with the contractual obligatory "Reagans are right, you did fine, it was their choice"

Personally I think that just being in the mentor/mentee program was the risk that got him beat up - as seen by the gang members harassing/threatening the mentee at the gym before Jamie mentioned "keeping an eye and ear out for things".

My second "team Jamie" is that he clearly said that if the brother comes forward then Jamie would see about getting him leniency. However the brother didn't come forward, and the cops instead burst into the brother's place to arrest him. It is not surprising that by the rules boy scout Jamie holds to what he said and lets the book be thrown at the brother.

 

So I see both actions/reactions as being within character for Jamie. 

I don't disagree with you about his character, but it sends a very bad message right now, which is that young people should not trust the cops.  And it also reflects badly on Jamie's character that there was no reflection on if he could have handled it differently.  My point was that if he wanted to mentor this young man, he should not have asked him AT ALL to intervene in crime-stoppers.  His job was to mentor him as a young adult, not to involve him in police business.  Just a really bad message to send in these times, really tone deaf.

[zapper]

i can see you point @jabRI i'm just not sure that it was presented that way. I took it as the brother didn't follow Jamie's ask and that the mentee went too far in poking about. However I agree that the message could have been better. Perhaps if the mentee had suggested "do you want me to ask about for anything?" with Jamie toning it down to "if you happen to overhear anything". that would have been a better message. perhaps.

but the writing, again, was poor. however your point to too important to be watered down with litanies of writing complaints, so that will be a distinct post.

[Daff]

Exactly. The mentor-mentee relationship is supposed to be all about the mentee. The whole story was just wrong. In the case of an actual police sergeant becoming a mentor, there must be rules about where the mentee lives. No?  In the same precinct would certainly raise all kinds of conflicts.  
 

As for TS’s sitting, lumbering gait, etc. , I thought it was common knowledge that he underwent a hip replacement quite a few years back, and that recovery wasn’t very easy. In fact, people were talking about it in conjunction with his weight gain. That said, all the rough and tumble in his past acting choices (Magnum, Quigley, etc.) have got to be playing up in those older bones. 

[zapper]

okay, writing. sigh.

the whole Frank thing was a mess for me. too underhanded for the high-and-mighty PC and how many times have we seen a cop, senior at times, sent packing with no pension because they exercised poor judgement? Not necessarily a crime, but poor judgement. Eddies partner Rachel comes to mind, as does the undercover copy Frank also hired back in a different season. So his whole "we have to save the pensions of my cops" was not within my realm of believability.

Now, when the Governor took it too far, that was a perfect window for Frank to say "i want bad cops to lose their pensions, but Mendez has gone too far and i have the backs of the rank and file. but of course that was overlooked as a way for Frank to be right when he was wrong, which we all know to be the Blue Bloods motto for the Reagans.

Next - Sid - wasn't he supposed t be taking a few weeks off to recover for his personal h*ll of a situation?  Yet here he was full of vim and vigor this episode.

Next - when Rachel and Eddie met Elena, she (Elena) said in response to the question of "what happened" said "She is crazy, how can anyone live like this?".  Upon reflection (and a rewatch), Elena never said that the wife had hit Elena, but it was misleading at best. And then to have the whole story wrapped up in 4.5 seconds with "he locks us in a room and beats us, i have pictures to show the bruises" was too abrupt. Nothing more, just a shocking revelation to end things, with the wife now being a victim while up to then she had been painted as a piece of work threatening Elena while at the door with Eddie and Rachel. 

Next - the two women gamers. hmmm, how about a line with Danny/Baez commenting on "why do they all look alike with the same hair and clothes?" because they did not look alike to me. And do you not think that in an up close and personal murder like strangulation the killer would have not noticed that he had the wrong woman? it's not like she was shot from a distance.  And to have Danny's son in the squad room guding Danny through web sites was a missed opportunity to have my favourite television IT specialist (glasses, red hair) on scene to help Danny and Baez. waste of a missed opportunity to reinforce that the IT specialist do not have to be guys.

Then - when on the roof top, Danny says that "I'm putting away my gun" - quick shot of the woman with the knife, then back to Danny - who still has the gun pointed at her. Hmmm, this one might be more bad editting than writing, but I'm dropping it on writing's lap still.

Finally, pretty antiquated view of Lent with no mention of acts of commission being as valid for Lenten reflection as acts of omission. Many (small c) catholic denominations follow that doctrine - perhaps (big c) Catholic still focus on acts of omission - it has been a long time since I looked at Catholic doctrine.

 

All in all two poorly written episodes in a row, but then I have to admit to having a favourite BB writer, and this episode did not get that writer 😞

 

 

[Sarah 103]

26 minutes ago, Daff said:

As for TS’s sitting, lumbering gait, etc. , I thought it was common knowledge that he underwent a hip replacement quite a few years back, and that recovery wasn’t very easy. In fact, people were talking about it in conjunction with his weight gain. That said, all the rough and tumble in his past acting choices (Magnum, Quigley, etc.) have got to be playing up in those older bones. 

Years ago there was an interview with Tom Selleck. He talked about the time some of the writers on Blue Bloods wanted to give him an action scene but he said no. He'd had his chance to do running, jumping, and car chases and told the writers to give the scene to one of the younger guys. I thought it was an amusing, funny story. This was so long ago and I do not remember enough details to find the link to the interview, otherwise I would have included it.

[zapper]

and more realistic than the PC being an action hero. that would be right up there with sending the captain, chief surgeon and first science officer to the planet every time something goes awry. 

 

because we never do that.

[becauseIsaidso]

23 hours ago, preeya said:

Erin keeps getting larger roles and Danny is staying consistent with Mr. Nice Guy.

Since the first several seasons were spent with Erin being Danny's (AND Henry's) punching bag, I have no problem with an intelligent, compentent woman getting a well and long-time justified spotlight for a change.

I have a very difficult time seeing Danny as a 'consistent' Mr. Nice Guy. He wasn't with his wife, he wasn't with his sister. He has been, for the most part, a henry clone of the worst sort.

[preeya]

2 hours ago, zapper said:

Next - Sid - wasn't he supposed t be taking a few weeks off to recover for his personal h*ll of a situation?  Yet here he was full of vim and vigor this episode.

I'm of the opinion this episode was presented out of sequence. I say that due to my own comment about the Lent conversation at the dinner table and what @ZAPPER has said as quoted.

[zapper]

1 hour ago, preeya said:

I'm of the opinion this episode was presented out of sequence. I say that due to my own comment about the Lent conversation at the dinner table and what @ZAPPER has said as quoted.

quite possibly. my better half said that the dinner section seemed unconnected with the episode, so I think they may have tacked on the "Easter dinner" onto the episode that landed closest to Easter. 

[preeya]

37 minutes ago, zapper said:

quite possibly. my better half said that the dinner section seemed unconnected with the episode, so I think they may have tacked on the "Easter dinner" onto the episode that landed closest to Easter. 

That wasn't the way I saw it. I thought it was the beginning of Lent where they were teaching Eddie the Regan way of sacrifice. Then at the end Erin offered Frank the buns and he said he was giving them up for Lent.  IRL time Lent was actually over for that sequence.

Edited April 4, 2021 by preeya

[zapper]

7 minutes ago, preeya said:

That wasn't the way I saw it. I thought it was the beginning of Lent where they were teaching Eddie the Regan way of sacrifice. Then at the end Erin offered Frank the buns and he said he was giving them up for Lent.  IRL time Lent was actually over for that sequence.

interesting read on it.  i took the hot cross buns to mean end of lent because that is when I have always seen them show up - at Easter.  These days however, you can buy them all year round i suppose

[Snazzy Daisy]

What a very boring episode 😴😴😴

[Daff]

Yes, yes, and yes. 

[TV Diva Queen]

as far as the out of sequence - I think that maybe they didn't think that March Madness would actually happen and they'd get pre-empted a week. I in the "its a regular Sunday dinner and not Easter dinner" corner.  

I like smart Harvard lawyer Jamie and not this person we see now.  He seems like a wimp now, with his wife undermining most of his decisions.  

I think they gave Tom Selleck a new Commissioner chair too, I used to laugh at how narrow it was and now it seems wider.  This is an indication of what I'm watching/looking for while the show is on.  LOL  

[Brian Cronin]

Who visits a guy just to tell him that you can't do anything to help his brother, but don't forget to call if you ever need anything else. Who thinks like that?