S22.E16: Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

[WendyCR72]

Airs June 3, 2021:

Quote

While Fin and Phoebe make wedding plans, Benson and Rollins try to help a homeless single mother who's being trafficked in exchange for safe housing.

 

[Devonte Huntley]

I wonder if we'll actually see a wedding take place on this show. This will be a first. 43 more minutes and this episode is premiering. Let's see what it throws at us. 

I hate this season is cut off at sixteen episodes. They so could have filmed at LEAST twenty. I wanted this season to make it to the 500th mark. I'm not even going to blame covid for this because Warren could have pushed more episodes than what we got. It's like they slowed down production when starting in September. There is no reason why we only got three episodes in the Fall/Winter when we could have at least had six. They were best off having this season be mid-season with a January premiere because the gap between the January episodes and February was also ridiculous. There was no episodes that we could have had air during then? Then from February to April? Also ridiculous. So yes, a mid-season premiere would have been better to ease down the hiatus gaps, but I'm sure they could have pushed out about six more episodes, tacking two extra each that could have aired in the month long gaps between December to January, January to February, and then February to April. 

They ought to start very early in production for next season because this is ridiculous. If they can push for a July start date then we should be good getting the normal set of episodes for next season. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[dttruman]

21 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

They ought to start very early in production for next season because this is ridiculous. If they can push for a July start date then we should be good getting the normal set of episodes for next season. 

Considering it had a tie in with L&O: OC when it came on in the spring, I am almost positive when it comes on in the fall, it will also have a tie in with L&O: OC again.

[WendyCR72]

25 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

I hate this season is cut off at sixteen episodes. They so could have filmed at LEAST twenty. I wanted this season to make it to the 500th mark. I'm not even going to blame covid for this because Warren could have pushed more episodes than what we got.

NBC decides, not Warren Leight. And until recently, COVID was still an issue. Many shows had a reduced number of shows this past season; it was not specific to SVU.

[dttruman]

I am wondering if this mother could be trafficking herself. If the guys that are coming by and treating her with respect and keeping their meetings clandestine, is this truely a "victimless crime"?

Well, so much for wishful thinking, there is a conspiracy and it deals with a lot more girls and a Chief of Staff guy who doesn't want to pay the extra money for more upscale talent.

Edited June 4, 2021 by dttruman

[SuzieQ]

That ending was barf worthy.  I forgot what the case was about.

[TooMuchRealityTV]

I'm sad for Chief Garland. It looks like nothing is off the table as far as the NYPD getting revenge on him.

I was hoping Carisi's relationship would work out, as I'm not a Rollins fan. Oh well.

[mtlchick]

I’m more invested in what is going to happened to Garland due to Anthony Michael Hall and his cronies as opposed to whatever Rollins/Carasi is doing. 
 

At least Stabler and Benson was kept to a minimum.

 There were a lot more shows I tolerated this season than hated so there’s that.

2 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

I hate this season is cut off at sixteen episodes. They so could have filmed at LEAST twenty. I wanted this season to make it to the 500th mark. I'm not even going to blame covid for this because Warren could have pushed more episodes than what we got. It's like they slowed down production when starting in September. There is no reason why we only got three episodes in the Fall/Winter when we could have at least had six. They were best off having this season be mid-season with a January premiere because the gap between the January episodes and February was also ridiculous. There was no episodes that we could have had air during then? Then from February to April? Also ridiculous. So yes, a mid-season premiere would have been better to ease down the hiatus gaps, but I'm sure they could have pushed out about six more episodes, tacking two extra each that could have aired in the month long gaps between December to January, January to February, and then February to April. 

They ought to start very early in production for next season because this is ridiculous. If they can push for a July start date then we should be good getting the normal set of episodes for next season. 

Almost every show got their orders cut from the network.  

COVID protocols added at least 10% to the budget so there was cost cutting all around.  Many episodes that shoot over 8 days got stretched out to 10.

Some shows struggled with covid outbreaks (organized crime was shut down I believe twice.)

This Is Us had major post production issues where they only managed to finish editing the day of airing until they had to delay airing episodes and had to hold off.

The truth is, this was not an easy production season for casts and crew. Hell, this show even lost A crew member at the start of the pandemic.  Instead of complaining that you wanted more episodes, let’s be happy that despite a really weird season story wise, they made it through. 

[wknt3]

The Good:
The COTW story. It was a good idea that touched on some interesting issues while continuing to give us some diversity in victims and perps. Didn't do as good as the last couple episodes in executing on the concept, but still a strong idea and the episode was at it;s best when it was focused on the investigation.
They did manage to keep the momentum going on using the entire cast squad well without anyone being the designated idiot.
Fin and Phoebe. A couple on this show I actually want to see MORE of.
Some strong and nuanced performances from the guest cast.

The Bad:
Garland. He was good as usual, but I'm not liking that it looks like they may either write him out or give us a clunky story abouft Garland (and Benson) vs. the evil white men of the NYPD. I'd rather they actually figure out how to use the character to tell him some new stories about parts of the process they have never really shown us before (as I've mentioned before they should take a page from the mothership and show us Benson doing the stuff Cragen only talked about).
The ending. It started well and then went down hill. Yuck. Meloni shows us how he can spin turds into gold, but they should have realized why there is till some shipper interest there and not committed to the full Rollisi. I enjoyed Rollisi when it wasn't actually there on screen and was just organic, arising from the actors' chemistry and the writing of Carisi as almost impossibly nice. But not when the writers have actually tried to make it all textual. Plus they were so focused on getting there that the interesting case just kind of tailed off.  And there weren't even any big surprise cameos.

Overall this wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as it could have and should have been. It ended not with a bang, but a meh. Hopefully OC will actually deliver.

[Xeliou66]

This episode was good - until the last few minutes. Carisi and Rollins kissing was so nauseating it left a bad taste in my mouth about the whole goddamn thing. I really hope that was just a one time emotional moment for both of them and that they don’t start a relationship next season, that would really harm the show. I knew Carisi was breaking up with his current girlfriend when he said she went on a crazy rant about weddings being about keeping women down, it’s too bad Carisi’s girlfriend turned out to be a wacko, I was hoping that relationship would last. Also, why did Carisi have to mention Hadid at the end, I was hoping the writers had forgotten the existence of that worthless bitch. If she shows up next season, please let it be in a body bag. So they really fucked up the ending to an otherwise good episode. 

The case was good - it had good investigative and legal work and was suspenseful. I liked that they had a female villain again that wasn’t sympathetic at all, that was a nice surprise. Carisi was very good as a lawyer, and all of the SVU squad was good. I just wish they had shown us who all was arrested at the end based on the female villains testimony instead of the sickening ending we got.

Nice continuity bringing back the woman from Sightless in a Savage Land who’s ex husband was represented by Barba, another example of  improved continuity by the writers. 

I also don’t like how they are setting up Garland to battle the evil “old guard” of the NYPD, that’s a cliched storyline that adds nothing to the show. I hope that is kept to a minimum next season, I like Garland and hope he doesn’t leave but I didn’t like that part of the episode either.

I laughed at Fin and Phoebe delaying their wedding again, I love Fin and I’m glad he’s happy, maybe next season we will get to see his actual wedding, hopefully with Munch there!! It was great to see Ken and Alejandro, I wondered if they would be there and I’m glad they were included. And Stabler/Benson wasn’t shoved down our throats, and Stabler’s facial expression when told Fin would delay the wedding was awesome.

So overall this episode was strong until the end, so unfortunately the season ended on a sour note with Rollins/Carisi, but at least we got a good case. I’ll post my thoughts on the season overall on another thread, but the season finale was a mixed bag - good case of the week, but the writers blew it at the end with Carisi/Rollins, so the season ended on a sour note for me. 

[wknt3]

22 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

NBC decides, not Warren Leight. And until recently, COVID was still an issue. Many shows had a reduced number of shows this past season; it was not specific to SVU.

 

20 hours ago, mtlchick said:

Almost every show got their orders cut from the network.  

COVID protocols added at least 10% to the budget so there was cost cutting all around.  Many episodes that shoot over 8 days got stretched out to 10.

Some shows struggled with covid outbreaks (organized crime was shut down I believe twice.)

This Is Us had major post production issues where they only managed to finish editing the day of airing until they had to delay airing episodes and had to hold off.

Dick Wolf, Warren Leight and almost everyone on the SVU team would have preferred to do more episodes. More episodes = more money and like almost everyone on earth they would have preferred more normalcy and the COVID curve flattening sooner. As long as Dick Wolf didn't finangle any government relief dollars it's not our business. I think I'm going to save my criticisms of SVU's response to COVID for the ridiculous and inconsistent depictions of masks, especially in earlier episodes.

Edited June 4, 2021 by wknt3

[txhorns79]

1 hour ago, SuzieQ said:

I forgot what the case was about.

The case did seem to wrap up extremely easy given there were supposedly all these power players involved.  I think the only ones who really gave much pushback were the women being trafficked.  Everyone else essentially confessed to everything without any real hesitation.  And yes, the ending was a little barfy.  Though I was glad to see that Rollins wore her dowdiest-mid 90s-style dress and shawl.

[mommalib]

42 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

The Good:
The COTW story. It was a good idea that touched on some interesting issues while continuing to give us some diversity in victims and perps. Didn't do as good as the last couple episodes in executing on the concept, but still a strong idea and the episode was at it;s best when it was focused on the investigation.
They did manage to keep the momentum going on using the entire cast squad well without anyone being the designated idiot.
Fin and Phoebe. A couple on this show I actually want to see MORE of.
Some strong and nuanced performances from the guest cast.

The Bad:
Garland. He was good as usual, but I'm not liking that it looks like they may either write him out or give us a clunky story abouft Garland (and Benson) vs. the evil white men of the NYPD. I'd rather they actually figure out how to use the character to tell him some new stories about parts of the process they have never really shown us before (as I've mentioned before they should take a page from the mothership and show us Benson doing the stuff Cragen only talked about).
The ending. It started well and then went down hill. Yuck. Meloni shows us how he can spin turds into gold, but they should have realized why there is till some shipper interest there and not committed to the full Rollisi. I enjoyed Rollisi when it wasn't actually there on screen and was just organic, arising from the actors' chemistry and the writing of Carisi as almost impossibly nice. But not when the writers have actually tried to make it all textual. Plus they were so focused on getting there that the interesting case just kind of tailed off.  And there weren't even any big surprise cameos.

Overall this wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as it could have and should have been. It ended not with a bang, but a meh. Hopefully OC will actually deliver.

I like Garland vs the evil White men of the NYPD as it continues to be a real problem in the real world. I'm interested to see how they play this. 

[Devonte Huntley]

On 6/3/2021 at 8:40 PM, dttruman said:

Considering it had a tie in with L&O: OC when it came on in the spring, I am almost positive when it comes on in the fall, it will also have a tie in with L&O: OC again.

And what do you mean by this?

On 6/3/2021 at 8:40 PM, WendyCR72 said:

NBC decides, not Warren Leight. And until recently, COVID was still an issue. Many shows had a reduced number of shows this past season; it was not specific to SVU.

I understand that, but I feel like they could have pushed. Whatever NBC's say was, Warren and company just flexed with the demand and I don't think they had to do this. Another user says the regular eight day shoot was pushed to ten days. Well they didn't need to stretch those ten days. They could have simplified the stories more where it didn't require much characters or settings and they could have followed their normal schedule to convince NBC they could shoot more episodes. But all it was was two extra days? Then how do we still not have more episodes than what we were given? At least four more if not six to get to the 500 at least? I would have snuck and filmed more episodes if I could and if we had the time. 

23 hours ago, SuzieQ said:

That ending was barf worthy.  I forgot what the case was about.

Because it wasn't about anything relating to the case? This is SVU for you. Get use to it. It's not L&O where it's going to be about stories and that's it. The show was always about the personal stuff and showcase things L&O didn't. I thought it was cute and something to round off on graciously in case the series didn't continue for another season. I will admit, the whole wedding set up was a real waste. 

22 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Also, why did Carisi have to mention Hadid at the end, I was hoping the writers had forgotten the existence of that worthless bitch. If she shows up next season, please let it be in a body bag. So they really fucked up the ending to an otherwise good episode. 

I didn't even realize she was mentioned but GOOD. I don't like her, but we talked about this in another thread about characters just being poorly written out or not utilized when they're in charge of our main characters particularly anything D.A. Office related who we OUGHT to be seeing. There's no forgetting anything. Mention these people and show them. I'm still itching to see if we're ever going to get a mention of who the D.A. is who is apparently not Jack McCoy at this point. I just rewatched the episode he was in from Season 19 and I forgot how out of it he looked. He was better off not even being D.A. at that point and shouldn't have since Season 13 retired him so this is a continuity error, but gee, that man should have appeared a few more times the season so he wasn't a one and done appearance and been retired in Season 20, again appearing and nothing off-screen. It's aggravating when they mention these characters but don't SHOW them. Seasons 11 and 12 I was sick of hearing "McCoy this" and "McCoy that" like SHOW MCCOY dammit. 

21 hours ago, mommalib said:

I like Garland vs the evil White men of the NYPD as it continues to be a real problem in the real world. I'm interested to see how they play this. 

Yes. I'd like to see an ongoing story-arc. We need to see more of this in the show to show case more continuity instead of these typical single episode story cases with an open and closed case by the end all the time. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[WendyCR72]

39 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

And what do you mean by this? [Regarding SVU/OC)

Simple. The shows keep having the characters cross over to the other show. So that will probably continue next season.

[Devonte Huntley]

46 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Simple. The shows keep having the characters cross over to the other show. So that will probably continue next season.

Okay? Seems like a random response as it had nothing to do with my statement on SVU starting it's next season production early so we can get more episodes, which is what that person quoted. 

But speaking of Organized Crime, I wonder if it's finale is set before or after SVU's season finale. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Okay? But I just don't see what that had to do with my statement on SVU starting it's next season production early so we can get more episodes. 

Well, if crossovers continue, the shows have to line up in the time line. And with story. So both shows could be impacted depending on when they start filming again.

[Devonte Huntley]

13 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Well, if crossovers continue, the shows have to line up in the time line. And with story. So both shows could be impacted depending on when they start filming again.

Then I suggest they get started on OC's production early then. That show ought to have more episodes for sure in it's second season. They could have at least did thirteen for Season 1. But they can still line up the timelines if one were to start weeks or even months before the other. SVU can still start early and if OC were to start months later, then line it up with the current SVU episode it airs with. Trial By Jury started months after L&O and SVU as a mid-season yet it's timelines with those shows lined up perfectly when it came to crossovers. If Chris Meloni appears on SVU's early S23 episodes, then the events of OC S2 wouldn't have occurred yet nor need to until that show is released. No problem there. Either do that or don't have him or any OC character appear until they get to SVU episodes that will line up with the OC ones. But SVU's early production capability should not be tampered with over Organized Crime's probable delay just to keep the shows in sync.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[WendyCR72]

15 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Then I suggest they get started on OC's production early then. That show ought to have more episodes for sure in it's second season. They could have at least did thirteen for Season 1. But they can still line up the timelines if one were to start weeks or even months before the other. SVU  can still start early and if OC were to start months later, then line it up with the current SVU episode it airs with. And if Chris Meloni appears on SVU's early episodes, then the events of OC S2 wouldn't have occurred yet. 

Time will tell. As I said, the network decides how many episodes it wants. Frankly, I like there are less episodes. Less filler, so that the shows have to get to the point/to the meat of a story. Broadcast TV is the only form of media that still seems stuck on 22 to 24 episodes. Streaming has changed the game.

Hell, the UK does only a handful of episodes a season and has for ages.

And in the case of SVU, practically every theme/crime has been done countless times, so less episodes could curb the endless repetition.

[Devonte Huntley]

16 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Time will tell. As I said, the network decides how many episodes it wants. Frankly, I like there are less episodes. Less filler, so that the shows have to get to the point/to the meat of a story. Broadcast TV is the only form of media that still seems stuck on 22 to 24 episodes. Streaming has changed the game.

Hell, the UK does only a handful of episodes a season and has for ages.

Adn in the case of SVU, practically every theme/crime has been done countless times, so less episodes could curb the endless repetition.

And the only thing with less episodes is that it's more hiatuses and gaps between seasons and by then I would have forgotten about the show to even care to continue. Less isn't always a good thing and more episodes is done to let the show get to a certain number for syndication. A show that last four years with a 22-24 amount is able to get to that requirement mark of syndicated episodes than if it were to have 10-13. And plus you just get more of the show. A show, especially a sitcom, should not have 40+ episodes after only four years. That's ridiculous. And who says it's always filler content? No, you get to develop the story more as providing less means having to squeeze down content and then the extra episodes means you can advance the story more than having to wait to do that in a year or even two. For example, a show with seasons of 12 episodes each. You have to wait until Season 2 episode 12 to see what the writers got cooked up then, when you could have that resolved at the end of the first season if given 24 episodes. Then you're not waiting an extra year to see how the story progresses, you get it all in ONE year. So more is better in this case. It's not always padding on filler, but keeping it moving a lot better with more episodes in less time frame than spacing it out and we're stuck waiting for story resolution in an extra year. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[WendyCR72]

30 minutes ago, Devonte Huntley said:

And the only thing with less episodes is that it's more hiatuses and gaps between seasons and by then I would have forgotten about the show to even care to continue. Less isn't always a good thing and who says it's always filler content? No, you get to advance the story more at a quicker pace than having to wait to do that in a year or even two. 

Agree to disagree. Anyway, back to the episode!

The Rollins/Carisi ickfest reminded me of a bad Harlequin novel. Damn, Dick Wolf really has gone soft in 30+ years. The Chicagoization (yes, I made this word up!) of the Law & Order franchise is doing the latter no favors.

My apologies to the Rollins/Carisi fans, but that's my take.

ETA: I have actually shipped couples, and I don't mind allusions to a relationship in the franchise [Jack/Claire as an example; allusions to a possible something with Mike Logan/Liz Olivet being another!], but the blatant in-your-face nature of late just seems like fan service. I prefer the subtle formula. That way, fans on both sides win, so to speak.

[MarylandGirl]

Was anyone else expecting Garland to collapse of a heart attack at some point in this ep? When he had his hand on his chest, then said he was just stressed, I was nervous watching his remaining scenes, expecting him to collapse. (Maybe because I was recently rewatching another series where that *does* happen to the police chief.)

I thought the COTW was good and that the actresses playing the victims were really strong (particularly the main one with the son). But agree with others that it was wrapped up too quickly, considering how high up it went. Could have been interesting as a two-parter. Or just an in ep that didn't also have to fit in Fin's (non)-wedding, Rollins & Carisi's (meh), and Stabler's scenes with Benson.

[dttruman]

20 hours ago, TooMuchRealityTV said:

I'm sad for Chief Garland. It looks like nothing is off the table as far as the NYPD getting revenge on him.

I was hoping Carisi's relationship would work out, as I'm not a Rollins fan. Oh well.

I guess the producers and writers still want to push that systemic racism stuff.  I wonder why they don't want to delve into the obvious rise in major crimes due to the de-funding of the police or the outright disrespect the people are showing the uniformed officers?

Edited June 4, 2021 by dttruman

[dttruman]

9 hours ago, wknt3 said:

The COTW story. It was a good idea that touched on some interesting issues while continuing to give us some diversity in victims and perps. Didn't do as good as the last couple episodes in executing on the concept, but still a strong idea and the episode was at it;s best when it was focused on the investigation.

How many times have they done this in the past where the writers come up with a good major conspiracy involving many levels of government, but they only covering it sparingly during an episode. This could have been a good 2 to 3 episode plot, but it's just one episode, where the plot has to be fitted in with minutes of Finn & Phoebe (this is acceptable), Rollins & Carisi, and Benson & Stabler personable personal matters.

[dttruman]

10 hours ago, wknt3 said:

Garland. He was good as usual, but I'm not liking that it looks like they may either write him out or give us a clunky story abouft Garland (and Benson) vs. the evil white men of the NYPD. I'd rather they actually figure out how to use the character to tell him some new stories about parts of the process they have never really shown us before (as I've mentioned before they should take a page from the mothership and show us Benson doing the stuff Cragen only talked about).

Xeliou66 said "I also don’t like how they are setting up Garland to battle the evil “old guard” of the NYPD, that’s a cliched storyline that adds nothing to the show. I hope that is kept to a minimum next season, I like Garland and hope he doesn’t leave but I didn’t like that part of the episode either."

I think they are setting Garland up to take a fall, either by his illness or being slapped down by the evil upper management for some flimsy inefficiencies that the writers try to come up with based on race.

Edited June 4, 2021 by dttruman

[dttruman]

7 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

12 hours ago, dttruman said:

Considering it had a tie in with L&O: OC when it came on in the spring, I am almost positive when it comes on in the fall, it will also have a tie in with L&O: OC again.

And what do you mean by this?

It seems like they are bending over backwards to tie OC in with SVU by having Stabler showing up or mentioning some of OC's character names. Usually it's just one simple crossover episode and that's it, but they have been pushing it lately. I guess they desperately want some immediate positive ratings.

[TV Diva Queen]

Could the writers be setting us up for Chief Benson?  God I hope not.....

I'd liked the ending, but I'm a big old softie for romance.

[faithie]

Christian Garland is in a battle with the evil white men of the NYPD hierarchy

Sgt. Bell from Organized Crime is in a battle of with the evil white men of the NYPD hierarchy (the nephew's brutality lawsuit)

This has been done:  nearly 20 years ago, S. Epatha Merkerson on the Mothership was in . . . a protracted legal battle with the evil white men of the NYPD hierarchy.

Anyhow, maybe it's me but has "trafficking" become the most overused term of the last 10-15 years.  Hard to believe that the NYPD would spend so much time and energy on a prostitution ring in which the prostitutes:

are all adults

all US citizens

not streetwalking

https://reason.com/2019/05/15/the-sex-trafficking-panic/

[lakin1013]

Maybe it was me but I expect to see the results of this eps criminals used in a future ep to give Garland a win.  They pulled in some big fish.  I expect Liv to help Garland use this to improve his standing and get the old guard off his back.  Garland could still be leaving the show but it could be health issues, not competency.  Chief Benson is a possibility.

I like this show but for the life of me I do not understand where the Benson/Stabler overlap is going.  It just makes no sense at all, it has no legs.  She is not going to give up her career, nor is he.  Let's say they couple - could that even happen?  Aren't there laws about that, IRL?  There are two strongly independent characters.  I just don't see a promise ring in either's future.

[Gigi43]

This was a good episode until the shmoopy ending. When they showed the woman head of the charity I thought to myself "in the old days she'd be involved but they won't do two female villains back to back" but they did! The case was pretty decent but kind of unremarkable at the same time. Good use of a call back to an old episode again with the Vets ex-wife.

 

I'm worried about Garland. Maybe it was understandably covid and then having to work in OC too but they didn't seem how to know how to work in all 6 main cast members this season so I wonder if they are considering writing Garland out? I want him to stay. But his situation is reminding me of Bell vs. NYPD on OC and I'm kinda like pick different stories for each show if you're gonna keep doing the cross overs at least have the side stories be very different. 

 

I loved seeing Ken and Alejandro and I'm fine with Finn and Phoebe deciding they don't need a marriage to be happy as long as Finn gets to stay happy. Rollins/Carisi was lame and the whole over the top sweeping kiss thing was eyerolling. I'm sick of Benson/Stabler but I did kinda love widower Stabler/Meloni's delivery of "good for them" when he found out the wedding didn't happen. 

[tennisgurl]

I was afraid all episode that Garland was going to collapse of a heart attack, he was not looking good, even clutching his chest a few times. It sucks watching Garland going through so much, with the asshole old guard going after him and now someone he respected being revealed to be a terrible person the way his reverend was, but I do like that he is getting a storyline and I am never going to complain about a bunch of racist old men getting taken down. I just hope this doesn't end up him getting written off or even killed so that Benson can save the day at the end, but at least its a story with potential. It feels like they are actually going to try and say something about the issue of institutionalized racism and police brutality instead of just awkwardly throwing it out there because they feel like they have to, which does a real disservice to the actual important issue. I am also annoyed that its another plot where you need to watch Organized Crime to get the full picture, just because I don't like when shows try to force me to watch another show to follow the show I'm watching on a regular basis. Even when I watch both shows anyway. 

The case of the week was pretty solid, even if I wish it had gotten a bit more screen time. The acting was all really good from the guest stars, especially the women playing the main victim, and I appreciated the diversity of the victims and perps as well as calling attention to the issues surrounding housing. The scheme itself was seriously messed up, especially as these poor women thought that they were getting this perfect deal but with an enormous clause, and it all being arranged by a women who was supposed to be helping homeless people just makes it even worse. I am surprised that we had two unsympathetic female villains in a row, and both of them very different in motive and crime as well. The actress playing the main bad guy was really good, I wanted to get a bit more of her when she was unmasked as the ringleader. She was "helping" women by forcing them into being sex slaves so that they can have a place to live? And she think that makes her the hero in all of this? What a hot take. This was also another episode where the detectives spend a lot of time investigating crimes where no one is actually reporting a crime or asking for help, and while its good that they try to get justice when there is clearly something bad happening, I really don't know how realistic it is. Is it the NYPD's policy to investigate the claims of every old busy body complaining about their neighbors on the off chance that the neighbor is being forced into prostitution? 

The show seriously must have a new continuity person, because its amazing how much more continuity the show is breaking out lately, this week with the ex of the vet who shot his daughters rapist showing up. I did want to get a bit of follow up with her though, did she get her daughter back? Or has the process even started? That's something that show has done a lot the last few seasons, they just seem to forget characters and plot lines because they get distracted by other things. 

 Then of course the big ending which basically becomes a romance novel for the last five minutes. I don't hate Rollins/Carisi like some people do, but they have negative chemistry and honestly Carisi can do better. Does he really want to be dragged into the hot mess that is the Rollins family? Or the hot mess that is Rollins herself? We don't really know much about Carisi's kind of girlfriend but she has been rubbing me the wrong way in both her first appearance and her in offscreen land, so its not that he has many good options, but I really just don't want this romance to start taking up too much time and dragging Carisi into Rollins drama. The over the top schmaltzy camera spinning as they kissed just makes it feel really silly, like its turned into a full on rom com instead of a cop show. Then of course we get Benson/Stabler shipper baiting, and they really just need to get them together or don't. Its also more of the "you have to watch both shows" stuff that I mentioned I dislike. Not that I am annoyed that Stabler was there, it makes sense for him to be at Finn's wedding, but this double show overarching "epic" of Benson/Stabler is just so not working for me. I still don't buy this huge romance, I know that they had an intense connection and all but its been a whole decade since they saw each other, if they are true loves they really need to take things slow. 

I am glad that Finn and Phoebe are going strong at least, even if they decided not to get married and just keep up the good thing they have going for them. In general there were a lot of nice character moments, like Carisi working on the wedding speech all episode (I do feel bad that he only got to do it for Rollins) and while Benson of course had to get her "victim cries into her arms" moment, she was mostly pretty professional and I appreciated her support with Garland. Not a bad season finale, but with a lot of eye rolling elements.   

[Bobsterfest]

5 hours ago, dttruman said:

I guess they producers and writers still want to push that systemic racism stuff.  I wonder why they don't want to delve into the obvious rise in major crimes due to the de-funding of the police or the outright disrespect the people are showing the uniformed officers?

lol.  Yes, that's how crime works.  It's definitely a free for all as soon as people start "disrespecting" uniformed officers 

[Devonte Huntley]

7 hours ago, TV Diva Queen said:

Could the writers be setting us up for Chief Benson?  God I hope not.....

I'd liked the ending, but I'm a big old softie for romance.

She just became captain like a couple seasons back. I don't think she needs another promotion so quickly unless Mariska wants a less work load and want to stay on the show. With Benson being chief, she won't be at SVU anymore.

6 hours ago, Gigi43 said:

This was a good episode until the shmoopy ending. When they showed the woman head of the charity I thought to myself "in the old days she'd be involved but they won't do two female villains back to back" but they did! The case was pretty decent but kind of unremarkable at the same time. 

 

I was hoping she wouldn't be a baddie, but bam they had to make her into one. Pitiful. 

5 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

The show seriously must have a new continuity person, because its amazing how much more continuity the show is breaking out lately, this week with the ex of the vet who shot his daughters rapist showing up.

I might have a role in this because I've been on twitter complaining to Warren (before he blocked me) and Julie Martin how they ought to be revisiting characters time and time again and then they start doing it. Like four years ago I tweeted how we ought to see the D.A. for once because the last we saw of him/her was when L&O was cancelled and this is seven years later and nada. Then just months later, Julie Martin announces the return of Sam Waterston. Coincidence? I think not. 

[Devonte Huntley]

8 hours ago, dttruman said:

It seems like they are bending over backwards to tie OC in with SVU by having Stabler showing up or mentioning some of OC's character names. Usually it's just one simple crossover episode and that's it, but they have been pushing it lately. I guess they desperately want some immediate positive ratings.

Yeah, it sure seems like it. But I frankly like it when related shows are interacting more especially when they're in the same area. That was my issue when the shows were running together in the 2000s, there wasn't much interaction especially when L&O or CI had rape cases involved yet no SVU or SVU would be mentioned (as in the case with L&O Season 20) but no characters from this show would appear. But the OC people were sneaky starting off the first episode as the "conclusion" of the SVU episode that kicks off the Stabler story because it's an ongoing season arc so the people responsible for Kathy's death wouldn't be caught by the end of that first episode. Now you'd have to tune into the other episodes to see how it all wraps up and even now with it's season finale the storyline doesn't seem all that way resolved despite the suspects being in jail and thus, needing to tune into Season 2. Pretty slick.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[melon]

My thoughts:

1.  idk why SVU took such an interest in prostitutes in a nice building, especially when they wanted to be left alone.  I said this about the previous episode, are there so few cases of real victims (rape, pedophiles, etc ) that they have time to go fishing for crimes?  Apparently, if there was evidence of luxury items and fancy food, then SVU would have dropped it?

2. Machado was a good villain, it was a good episode title.  I found it realistic that she thought she was helping the women by having them improperly cut the line over the hundreds of honest applicants (I think it's 650-1 acceptance rate).  If Machado let the "victims of trafficking" look at the apartment, tell them what is involved- I wonder what their reaction would have been?

3.  I like that Machado received a slap on the wrist.  But I don't think that the "victims" should be allowed to stay in their apartments based on them obtaining them illegally.  Or at the least, have a cut away to the story hitting the media with interviews of  many legal applicants complaining that have been waiting for something to open up, while working 2-3 jobs.  IRL this would be a huge story because sex sells.

4.  I like that Garland is being put through the ringer.  He wasn't my first choice- that was Benson.  But I wanted someone to go through hell in the department for the Trayvon arrest and for criticizing their department/officers.  I also see Garland retiring with full benefits and Benson being elevated.  I hope he doesn't die from natural causes, though.

5.  Overall an excellent episode but not enough push back from the perps.  Only the unhappy prostitutes fought back while being investigated.  The johns and perps rolled over immediately.  But kudos for having 2 episodes where the villain was a woman.

 

[853fisher]

She didn't have much to do, but I was glad to see Michelle Hurst as the nosy neighbor.  I loved her in the first season of "Orange is the New Black," then shortly after it was released she was in a bad car accident and in a medical coma for two weeks.  It seems she's had a few small roles here and there since her recovery, but I just hadn't caught any of them.

[dttruman]

7 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I appreciated the diversity of the victims and perps as well as calling attention to the issues surrounding housing. The scheme itself was seriously messed up, especially as these poor women thought that they were getting this perfect deal but with an enormous clause, and it all being arranged by a women who was supposed to be helping homeless people just makes it even worse.

 

7 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

She was "helping" women by forcing them into being sex slaves so that they can have a place to live? And she think that makes her the hero in all of this? What a hot take. This was also another episode where the detectives spend a lot of time investigating crimes where no one is actually reporting a crime or asking for help, and while its good that they try to get justice when there is clearly something bad happening, I really don't know how realistic it is. Is it the NYPD's policy to investigate the claims of every old busy body complaining about their neighbors on the off chance that the neighbor is being forced into prostitution? 

Usually when I watch an episode where prostitution is significant on SVU the ladies are beat up, blackmailed or threatened in some way. Here they are almost (or probably are) grateful, because I really didn't see any complaining. This was the most sympathetic episode for prostitution I have ever seen on SVU, not one sleazy pimp, not one psycho john, and not one underage hooker, I think?

[wknt3]

19 hours ago, mommalib said:

I like Garland vs the evil White men of the NYPD as it continues to be a real problem in the real world. I'm interested to see how they play this. 

I don't disagree that systemic racism and more broadly the culture of policing and placing loyalty above all else, including public duty is a real problem. And if I had any confidence that it would be handled well I would love to see it explored. Especially since it would mean new and different types of stories. I don't like the story because in my opinion it has not been handled well and they have given us no reason to believe it will be. Instead it will mean more stories about how great Benson is. I hope I am wrong. But nothing so far indicates we will see any sort of nuance or any real consequences. I'm sorry that it seems my comments have been misinterpreted. I don't think the story is clunky because it's "too woke" or based on a faulty premise. I think it's clunky because of the way it's being handled as an occasional C subplot and another hurdle for our heroes to overcome instead of as one of the most compelling issues confronting our society today. I think that both the mothership and OC have had more interesting things to say on the subject without making such an obvious effort.

[melon]

35 minutes ago, dttruman said:

 

Usually when I watch an episode where prostitution is significant on SVU the ladies are beat up, blackmailed or threatened in some way. Here they are almost (or probably are) grateful, because I really didn't see any complaining. This was the most sympathetic episode for prostitution I have ever seen on SVU, not one sleazy pimp, not one psycho john, and not one underage hooker, I think?

 They should have had Rollins and Carisi argue that the victims weren't complaining and that there were more important cases to work on.  Because that is what real life detectives would say, IMO.

After the tennants found out what they had to do to keep the apartment, did they have the choice to leave?  If the answer was yes, and they chose to stay, then how is this trafficking?  I can't imagine Machado forcing the women to stay, especially since there are plenty of hard luck women in shelters that would jump at a chance to live in a luxury building that's harder to get accepted into than Harvard. 

Speaking of Machado, in theory, how do you think she was compensated for recruiting the tennants?  Was she paid cash, or given favors on the political level that would assist her mission to help the needy?

[Wizardpatch]

Well I guess this was the obligatory "liberal dogooders can be bad and corrupt too" episode to try and balance the usual half dozen "rich white men be raping everybody" episodes. 

[dttruman]

8 minutes ago, melon said:

Speaking of Machado, in theory, how do you think she was compensated for recruiting the tennants?  Was she paid cash, or given favors on the political level that would assist her mission to help the needy?

I guess the writers and producers thought it was more important to cover the living together celebration of Finn and Phoebe with all the others characters throwing in their sentimental byplay.

[preeya]

23 hours ago, SuzieQ said:

That ending was barf worthy.  I forgot what the case was about.

 

[WendyCR72]

A reminder: Civility is a board rule for everyone to follow. Everyone will have an opinion; some will not correspond to your own. That's the nature of a message board. If you cannot disagree in a civil manner, scroll or use the poster ignore feature.

If anyone needs assistance there, please send a PM and myself or @txhorns79 will be happy to assist you.

[Devonte Huntley]

I'm reposting my comment with the issue remark apparently removed so things should be fine now.

1 hour ago, melon said:

Yes, I'm serious.  If everyone had the same opinion, this would be a boring message board.  Honestly, I am not upset one bit that you disagree because many others will also disagree.

IRL, it would have been dropped or would have been referred to vice. Probably dropped, referred to vice, or child services.  I have found your posts interesting and I certainly don't view you as "pitiful to the core" for having a different opinion. 

I added to the comment so please read the rest of what I've written to further see my point since apparently that first paragraph alone hasn't shaped your mind. These "ignore and move along" cases are why victims become tolerable to them and thus feel the need to not say much and thus possibly putting their kids in danger. It could be only a matter of time those men would want to do things with the kids too. Nip that crap in the bud before it gets out of hand and the creeps get more ideas to exploit these poor desperate people even more than just the parent. No one in their right mind could sit up here and tell me SVU should have just left it alone. If that is the case in reality, then that's something that need to change because that is dangerous to the well being of these people and their kids if they're in the mix and no one to protect them. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Devonte Huntley

[Zoe]

Phew, I thought I got spoiled by a headline and I was about to toss a table cause the implication was that Stabler and Benson get together. Guess it was clickbait about Rollisi.

Meh, I don't care about which way the outcome fell. I'm just glad that's finally been put to bed. 

[mommalib]

5 hours ago, wknt3 said:

I don't disagree that systemic racism and more broadly the culture of policing and placing loyalty above all else, including public duty is a real problem. And if I had any confidence that it would be handled well I would love to see it explored. Especially since it would mean new and different types of stories. I don't like the story because in my opinion it has not been handled well and they have given us no reason to believe it will be. Instead it will mean more stories about how great Benson is. I hope I am wrong. But nothing so far indicates we will see any sort of nuance or any real consequences. I'm sorry that it seems my comments have been misinterpreted. I don't think the story is clunky because it's "too woke" or based on a faulty premise. I think it's clunky because of the way it's being handled as an occasional C subplot and another hurdle for our heroes to overcome instead of as one of the most compelling issues confronting our society today. I think that both the mothership and OC have had more interesting things to say on the subject without making such an obvious effort.

I see where your coming from. Even if it turns out to be a bit clunky I hope there is some consequence and accountability for the good ole boy cops and I want Garland to be behind it not Benson.

Edited June 5, 2021 by mommalib

[Arthur Jury]

Oh no !!???!!!  Mocha Joe is a rapist ????  I mean its bad enough he has cold coffee, wobbly tables, and doesn't know what a scone is, but he's a rapist too ???  What could be worse ? well, maybe the wobbly tables (everybody hates those !) .....   If Latte Larry shows up as a "spite criminal" then I'm def out. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Arthur Jury

[dttruman]

16 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

Are you serious? That's like telling a social worker who visited a family and children had marks and bruises, to just not take extra precaution because "They live in a nice house and have lots of food and their own rooms and many expensive toys, so everything is good!". So let's just NOT take into consideration what was happening behind closed doors because things just LOOK fine. You are pitiful to the core to even say something as grotesque as this and I am appalled. APPALLED. Let's be clear, SVU saw the women were not truly comfortable and were putting on that usual scared front of "Everything is fine! I'm happy! Leave me alone!" bull crap. They've been through this many times and KNOW what the deal is to just "drop it". And when there's KIDS involved? You best believe they're gonna fight to the end to stop whatever corrupt thing is going on here whether the parent likes it or not and if the parents can't cooperate, then they'll just go around them like they did going after the owner and going from there. And the reaction on that mother's face when Olivia told her the men were put away and weren't going to hurt her anymore? A reaction of joy even through from the beginning she was constantly shutting them out! She was NOT truly okay with any of this so it was a god send SVU kept pushing to shut this case. 

And yes, while the women chosen to stay, understand they were desperate to avoid being in far worse positions such as being in a bad shelter or being literally on the streets, so of course they were gonna "give in" and "deal" with what was being thrown at them because the system is not fair for everyone to be able to grasp onto other possible choices. It's trafficking in the sense that it's taking advantage of people who they know are going to give-in because they don't have an alternative. You think because some one chooses to do something they enjoy it, but it's not always that simple. Desperate times lead to making desperate decisions that are of course wrong, but you're not thinking of the "wrong" when you're simply trying to survive and here you have this nice environment that is too good to pass up. It's like being a straight man in prison having sex with other men to survive. You think the men that do it are comfortable and like it? They hate it, but they do it because it will gain them protection. While some men can make due without resorting to such a low thing, others are not strong minded to be as confident and don't want to sink what they feel is lower. But deep down, they are hurting and feeling bad about what they're doing regardless if they say otherwise.

I have to agree with the previous commenter and say that these ladies showed no real signs of exploitation. Don't blame us for our opinions, I believe your problem is with the writers and producers. They hardly showed the seedier side of prostitution, in fact I would say they showed the positive side (or the advantages) of prostitution and none of the dark consequences. The observations you made about the tenants of that building were mostly assumptions.

[dttruman]

12 hours ago, mommalib said:

I see where your coming from. Even if it turns out to be a bit clunky I hope there is some consequence and accountability for the good ole boy cops and I want Garland to be behind it not Benson.

I agree there are some "good ole boy cops" and they need to be held accountable but what about those other innocent bystander victims out there who are struck by bullets when there is so much gang violence going on. The writers and producers seem to let Benson overlook those victims.

[melon]

15 hours ago, Devonte Huntley said:

I'm reposting my comment with the issue remark apparently removed so things should be fine now.

I added to the comment so please read the rest of what I've written to further see my point since apparently that first paragraph alone hasn't shaped your mind. These "ignore and move along" cases are why victims become tolerable to them and thus feel the need to not say much and thus possibly putting their kids in danger. It could be only a matter of time those men would want to do things with the kids too. Nip that crap in the bud before it gets out of hand and the creeps get more ideas to exploit these poor desperate people even more than just the parent. No one in their right mind could sit up here and tell me SVU should have just left it alone. If that is the case in reality, then that's something that need to change because that is dangerous to the well being of these people and their kids if they're in the mix and no one to protect them. 

1. I am consistent about law enforcement staying in their lane when it comes to family matters and victims wishing to be left alone.  I had the same response last week when Garland and the team strong armed the husband to end his marriage and press charges, when he didn't want to (at least, initially). 

2. I am against the police (Finn) conducting an interview with a small child without the mother being present.  Especially when the questions are geared towards if the mom is a prostitute.  Last week, I also didn't like it when Garland had the victim's young son over dinner and obtained information that he used against the mother.

3.  The "ignore and move along" concept has a lot to do with an understaffed and overworked squad.  With that combination, cases without evidence of a crime and without an obvious victim are put on the back burner behind more pressing cases.  In this case, the johns clearly had no interest in the boy. 

4.  I think Dick Wolf wanted us to debate this case and set up the characters where good points can be argued on both sides.  He did the same thing last episode with the large man and small wife.