Anticipation for Law & Order Season 21

[Morrigan2575]

4 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Right==Annie Parrisie

🤦🏻 I never knew the actresss name 😂

[WendyCR72]

7 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

🤦🏻 I never knew the actresss name 😂

Annie Parisse was also on the show prior to her role of ADA Alexandra Borgia as Jasmine Blake in the episode "Attorney Client" in Season 12. Which makes me wonder how the casting for Borgia went sideways since the actress had already appeared on the show so TPTB had to know her acting style and such then.

And wasn't there some dumbass statement that the character was not "sexy" enough? Well, again, if the actress' appearance was an issue...she was a guest star before, so they knew what she looked like back in S12. I was NOT even much of an Alex Borgia fan, but it really seems like TPTB did Annie Parisse a bit dirty there.

ETA: Because the missing word makes a difference here!

[Morrigan2575]

12 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

went sideways since the actress had already appeared on the show so TPTB had to know her acting style 

I never understood why she was fired. I remember stuff about her not clicking with Waterson acting wise but, I thought she was fine, I liked Alex. 

 

[illdoc]

17 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Annie Parisse was also on the show prior to her role of ADA Alexandra Borgia as Jasmine Blake in the episode "Attorney Client" in Season 12. Which makes me wonder how the casting for Borgia went sideways since the actress had already appeared on the show so TPTB had to know her acting style and such then.

And wasn't there some dumbass statement that the character was not "sexy" enough? Well, again, if the actress' appearance was an issue...she was a guest star before, so they knew what she looked like back in S12. I was even much of an Alex Borgia fan, but it really seems like TPTB did Annie Parisse a bit dirty there.

Especially since the (first) role was that of a stripper! We call her "the wimp", since she always seemed so subservient. All the other ADAs seemed natural when they would call the lead attorney by their first name (Ben, Jack). She always seemed like she should be calling him "Mr. McCoy", like she wasn't his equal. I had no problem with any of the other attorneys handing a case (whether it was questioning a witness or as the lead attorney), but she lacked confidence.

[Xeliou66]

Borgia was very bland and did seem rather weak compared to the others, she was the least memorable ADA by a mile, and along with Serena my least favorite ADA. I really liked all of them aside from Borgia and Serena. Serena seemed more competent and confident than Borgia but she was whiny and also rather lifeless at times. 

[WendyCR72]

7 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Borgia was very bland and did seem rather weak compared to the others, she was the least memorable ADA by a mile, and along with Serena my least favorite ADA. I really liked all of them aside from Borgia and Serena. Serena seemed more competent and confident than Borgia but she was whiny and also rather lifeless at times. 

Like I said, I wasn't even much of an Alex Borgia fan (the only Alex of the 3 in the franchise I didn't care about much! LOL!), but TPTB basically denigrating the actress' looks and acting when she had already appeared on the show (albeit in a guest role) and should have been familiar with her looks/acting style just sort of angers me.

If anything, blame the writers for her characterization.

[Door County Cherry]

Yeah.  I think Borgia not working is on TPTB. 

She had a great episode where she threatened that doctor to get information about an exec knowing her father raped her daughter because it happened to her.

[Xeliou66]

8 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

Yeah.  I think Borgia not working is on TPTB. 

She had a great episode where she threatened that doctor to get information about an exec knowing her father raped her daughter because it happened to her.

That was Borgia’s best moment by far - it was from Cost of Capital in season 16, I loved her threatening that scumbag doc who covered up the dad raping his daughter and granddaughter, she was really good in that scene. On the other hand, I’ve expressed many times how much I hated Borgia in the In God We Trust episode, her implying that the killer’s religiousness should affect how they handle his case was disgusting to me. In most episodes Borgia was just kind of there though, bland and unmemorable and lacking personality. So glad she was replaced with the awesome Rubirosa in season 17. 

[TotalDrama]

It's about time this show is coming back. Never should have been cancelled in the first place. It was all because of production costs getting too high and Wolf refusing to accept a pay cut. Clearly Wolf was off his rockers not accepting a pay cut given how much money he was banking off of these shows and others not even on NBC that were running at the time. But NBC still takes fault because they should have scraped the Los Angeles spinoff and kept the original going. They surely had enough money to get THAT show going. Never understood why they needed that worthless knock-off show and then it didn't even do well. When they took that quick hiatus and did casting changes and then held back like five episodes causing continuity errors and then tried to MARKET it as a new show upon return, I knew it was done. But this is something that took twelve years too late to do. We're talking 2015 when official talks were made to bring it back and nothing happened and here we are over six years later and they're NOW doing something. 

Quite a shame most of the original cast members of the last seasons can't return. The biggest mistake was casting those actors as other characters in shows taking place in the SAME UNIVERSE like S. Epatha on Chicago Med. Wouldn't work with Van Buren popping up even in a guest-role now as long as Sharon is still present and even if she leaves, it's gonna have to be years before Van Buren can pop up to give time to "erase" Sharon's existence as they did with Van Buren upon bringing Sharon into the picture. Guess we won't be seeing Connie and Lupo back in guest spots. Why were the FBI shows even connected? They're on CBS, not NBC so that was an odd choice. And as if Wolf even needed another trio of shows to compete with Chicago and now they're doing it with L&O like why does he need all these shows knowing they're gonna cost so much to produce at once and the way they just cranked out the spinoffs it's like desperation. FBI just started like a few years ago and it already has two spinoffs within the next year and a half of its run? The other two FBI shows weren't necessary. 

I disagree entirely on people that don't want there to be any crossovers with SVU and OG. Say what you want about the quality of the shows but if you have these shows taking place in not only the same city but the same BOROUGH, then I expect some increase interaction especially when you have the Chicago shows crossing over like crazy. That upset me because the L&O shows weren't given this kind of treatment and it was like Wolf knew he screwed up not doing the crossovers as much so he was making it up on the Chicago shows. The lack of it with the L&O franchise for the most part during the 2000s was my biggest complaint because they barely interacted when on the air together. SVU and CI didn't have ONE crossover the entire time they were on the air together and when CI shifted to USA Network for its last four seasons, the connections were so distant it was like they weren't even in the same area anymore and yet they were. So I expect crossovers like crazy, more interactions between departments and people can deal with it. These are siblings shows set in the same area, so this is needed and expected. You cannot keep them separate. 

Warren Leight must be very angry. He made it clear on twitter Jack McCoy was no longer in office as the District Attorney of Manhattan and SVU seems to imply this given how disorganized the DA's Office seemed to have been in Season 20-21 you wouldn't think Jack would be overseeing such a disaster, but the pitiful showrunner never bothered to write Jack out or replace him with someone else so look what happened. How LAZY can you be to be so unwilling to provide closure or proper character screentime when it comes to certain leaders of the main characters on the show? Vanessa Hadid vanished, and she was the latest SVU bureau chief. Warren never bothered to explain what happened to Novak, Cabot, or Cutter (Hadid's predecessor) claiming he was "leaving the door open for them to come back" as he wrote to me but I'm like yeah...that was lazy because they're just wandering somewhere but we're not seeing them? Are they still in position or not? If not, we need to know where they are and why they left and if so, WE SHOULD BE SEEING THEM. So thankfully L&O is back because we can now see the head D.A. in action, but the downside to Jack still being there is you look back at these SVU moments where the DA's Office is "off" and you're wondering how Jack could let those issues happen. 

But overall, I wish the revival well. I'm glad we have two familiar faces at least. We would not have gotten Anthony back if Black-ish didn't come to an end or even wrap up when it did as it was given a shorter amount of episodes. I wish they could have brought back some familiar faces from the past and there's plenty they could have done, but I hope these new characters give fans appeal. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by TotalDrama

[TotalDrama]

6 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Like I said, I wasn't even much of an Alex Borgia fan (the only Alex of the 3 in the franchise I didn't care about much! LOL!), but TPTB basically denigrating the actress' looks and acting when she had already appeared on the show (albeit in a guest role) and should have been familiar with her looks/acting style just sort of angers me.

If anything, blame the writers for her characterization.

I don't get your complaint here. Are you saying Anne acted too similar to that guest-character when she came back as Alex? My grife is Anthony Anderson and Jeremy Sisto's casting/character choices. I have no issue with Anthony, but why couldn't he be the Detective Blaine character he played on SVU a couple years before? We didn't see him die or retire and we would have been familiar with him. Why make a whole new character? And Jeremy...oh Jeremy. The man plays a defense attorney in the Season 17 finale and gets cast as someone else entirely in the very next episode with a shaven face like that's suppose to be convincing. Good going Dick Wolf. Why even bother? He was best being one of the ADAs which would have been fitting since he's already playing a lawyer so we could have the defense attorney changing sides. This would have been an interesting angle to see as we had two ADAs (Paul and Jamie) go defense attorney, so this would be a reversal not seen before. Of course, that would mean eliminating either Connie or Michael Cutter. My choice would have been Connie because I think we had enough string of male/female ADA teams since Season 4 and wouldn't mind going back to two male ADAs again. But that means giving Connie a year stint and we don't need that given the short stint of Alex Borgia just prior to her. So, I'd keep Connie but make her the executive ADA since Jeremy's lawyer character would be too fresh to the DA's office to be in that role if he were to switch. The show never did have a female ADA lead before so I wouldn't have minded the male/female lawyer team continuing more if the roles were swapped this time. They should have done that this time in the revival especially with how "woke" things have been for women over the last few years so this was a missed opportunity.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by TotalDrama

[TotalDrama]

Seems like I cursed this thread. I wrote some interesting things, especially against the famous opinion here on there being no crossovers between the shows this is NEIGHBORING not only airing wise but setting wise which is just redundant, and no one has yet to respond in it. Let's see if I can revamp things because I have more to say on this subject.

This franchise needs to be handled by one showrunner and while that can be grueling overseeing three shows, at least then it can have some consistency especially if set in the same area. The shows don't come off being set around each other because 98% of the guest characters and places we are established to in this franchise are never shown again after their one and only appearance and that's odd. It makes me wonder if the people and places still exist. The only consistent thing I've seen play a factor multiple times on most of the shows is Hudson University and Central Park. But other schools? Malls? Stores? Restaurants? Theaters? Businesses? They're always different. It seems like the spinoffs should have been set in different boroughs: L&O in Manhattan, SVU in maybe Brooklyn, CI in like Queen, TBJ in like Bronx, OC in like Staten Island, etc. unless one of the shows end and then we can have another set in the same area as long as we still see things from THAT show carried over, but I'm just OCD about these things. So if I was in charge of all the shows there would be crossovers like crazy, mostly from the guest characters than the main ones. What do you guys think? 

Edited January 5, 2022 by TotalDrama

[WendyCR72]

I am crossing my fingers and toes that this will be one revival that does not suck.

Because (and I know they are COMPLETELY different shows in style!) the revival for Sex and The City is...awful. Just terrible. So I'm still rather afraid of this revival tarnishing the other 20 seasons, yet I am still hoping for the best here!

[TotalDrama]

43 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

I am crossing my fingers and toes that this will be one revival that does not suck.

Because (and I know they are COMPLETELY different shows in style!) the revival for Sex and The City is...awful. Just terrible. So I'm still rather afraid of this revival tarnishing the other 20 seasons, yet I am still hoping for the best here!

The actors all seem good given their other works (not familiar with two of them though) and the format is one that can go on for ages. It all comes down to the writing and the charm these new characters can give off and it better be strong.

I wonder how the opening intro will be. Given the show has been off since 2010 and this is technically like the start of a "new series" even though it's Season 21 of the original run, there's still that big gap and TV landscape has changed since. So I'm wondering if it will keep the original opening that lasted its way through twenty seasons with little tweaks over time or will this have a more modernize opening like Organized Crime does which seems more fitting for the era. It kind of makes SVU's opening look dated. It seems like by 2010 the 1990s style L&O openings were looking stale that not even the Los Angeles spinoff used one and went for a more modern style display. SVU should have gotten an update by its thirteenth season with at least new images and live shots of NYC in the opening and closing shots which been the same since Season 3.

Edited January 5, 2022 by TotalDrama

[wknt3]

1 hour ago, TotalDrama said:

I wonder how the opening intro will be. Given the show has been off since 2010 and this is technically like the start of a "new series" even though it's Season 21 of the original run, there's still that big gap and TV landscape has changed since. So I'm wondering if it will keep the original opening that lasted its way through twenty seasons with little tweaks over time or will this have a more modernize opening like Organized Crime does which seems more fitting for the era. It kind of makes SVU's opening look dated. It seems like by 2010 the 1990s style L&O openings were looking stale that not even the Los Angeles spinoff used one and went for a more modern style display. SVU should have gotten an update by its thirteenth season with at least new images and live shots of NYC in the opening and closing shots which been the same since Season 3.

I imagine there will only be slight tweaks to update the visual look a bit. It is classic for a reason - Led Zeppelin never messed around much with the intro to "Stairway to Heaven" in live performances and the same principle applies here. Also I'm sure Dick Wolf doesn't want anything that would be too jarring in syndication or streaming marathon viewing. I'm hoping they have learned from experience across the franchise that you do best when you keep up with the times and find fresh new angles character and plot wise, but stick with the formula overall. Trying to keep up with modern trends is how we get crappy musical montage openings and overly stylized set designs in the various spinoffs!

[TotalDrama]

8 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

I imagine there will only be slight tweaks to update the visual look a bit. It is classic for a reason - Led Zeppelin never messed around much with the intro to "Stairway to Heaven" in live performances and the same principle applies here. Also I'm sure Dick Wolf doesn't want anything that would be too jarring in syndication or streaming marathon viewing. I'm hoping they have learned from experience across the franchise that you do best when you keep up with the times and find fresh new angles character and plot wise, but stick with the formula overall. Trying to keep up with modern trends is how we get crappy musical montage openings and overly stylized set designs in the various spinoffs!

Do you find Organized Crime's opening too overly stylized and has a crappy musical montage?

[Ailianna]

3 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

Seems like I cursed this thread. I wrote some interesting things, especially against the famous opinion here on there being no crossovers between the shows this is NEIGHBORING not only airing wise but setting wise which is just redundant, and no one has yet to respond in it. Let's see if I can revamp things because I have more to say on this subject.

This franchise needs to be handled by one showrunner and while that can be grueling overseeing three shows, at least then it can have some consistency especially if set in the same area. The shows don't come off being set around each other because 98% of the guest characters and places we are established to in this franchise are never shown again after their one and only. It makes me wonder if the people and places still exist. The only consistent thing I've seen play a factor multiple times on most of the shows is Hudson University and Central Park. But other schools? Malls? Stores? Restaurants? Theaters? Businesses? They're always different. It seems like the spinoffs should have been set in different boroughs: L&O in Manhattan, SVU in maybe Brooklyn, CI in like Queen, TBJ in like Bronx, OC in like Staten Island, etc. unless one of the shows end and then we can have another set in the same area as long as we still see things from THAT show carried over, but I'm just OCD about these things. So if I was in charge of all the shows there would be crossovers like crazy, mostly from the guest characters than the main ones. What do you guys think? 

That is just not how NYC works though. Other than Central Park\Union Square\so on (and they were in a lot of those public spaces) things in NYC are very fluid. Restaurants don't stay open forever. Sometimes it seems like the same space is a different restaurant every few months. There are no malls in Manhattan (thank God!) and when they go to the theatre district, the actual theatres don't change but what's playing does, just like in real life. The city is also a character, but one who gets even less person life than the main cast. But the show's basic loyalty to NYC has been consistent. They use the imaginary Hudson University to avoid legal action (the first seasons used the real schools....) but showing the variety and texture of especially Manhattan is part of the L&O DNA. I'd hate to see them generic up a city I love just for someone's idea of "consistency", when the inconsistent is more real.

[Cristofle]

3 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

I am crossing my fingers and toes that this will be one revival that does not suck.

Because (and I know they are COMPLETELY different shows in style!) the revival for Sex and The City is...awful. Just terrible. So I'm still rather afraid of this revival tarnishing the other 20 seasons, yet I am still hoping for the best here!

I feel you. I refused to watch the SATC reboot because I 100% knew it would be terrible, and nothing I've heard about it so far makes me regret that decision, lol. I think L&O might have a better chance because of its somewhat timeless format? There are always murders for detectives to investigate and prosecutors to prosecute, and OG L&O remains unparalled in any of the longer-running/current L&O series for giving equal or even sometimes more attention to the prosecutor's office (SVU has never given as much attention to the courtroom and neither did CI, and OC isn't even trying, they just use the SVU ADA when they need one) so it's not something we're getting from other Wolf shows. Versus I think SATC worked in a certain time, in a certain period in these women's lives, and I could never see a reboot working today. And from everything I hear, it's not working, heh. L&O comes down to writing and cast chemistry. It CAN work, as long as the cast gels and the writing is sharp.

[TotalDrama]

2 hours ago, Ailianna said:

That is just not how NYC works though. Other than Central Park\Union Square\so on (and they were in a lot of those public spaces) things in NYC are very fluid. Restaurants don't stay open forever. Sometimes it seems like the same space is a different restaurant every few months. There are no malls in Manhattan (thank God!) and when they go to the theatre district, the actual theatres don't change but what's playing does, just like in real life. The city is also a character, but one who gets even less person life than the main cast. But the show's basic loyalty to NYC has been consistent. They use the imaginary Hudson University to avoid legal action (the first seasons used the real schools....) but showing the variety and texture of especially Manhattan is part of the L&O DNA. I'd hate to see them generic up a city I love just for someone's idea of "consistency", when the inconsistent is more real.

Really? So NYC is just constantly revamping its places after every few months? I don't believe that. Even the smaller owned businesses? I mean, the schools for sure we should be seeing and I don't care if they use real ones or fictional ones, but other than Hudson University, I've seen like maybe 30 different schools in Manhattan alone over the course of L&O, SVU, and CI and I don't believe for a second all these schools exist in this one little borough. My issue is they don't bother re-using many of the same places and characters we see. Like that random puerto rican lady who's a nosy neighbor over on 10th Street? I should be seeing her pop up dozens of times across all the shows. The Asian dude who runs the store on Spruce Street? I should be seeing him a lot. That charter school over on the east side? Why can't this be the same one we see across the shows? It's a one and done. Pitiful. All the extras we see and we don't see them anymore. The guest characters who we see a part of one case should be popping up at random many times. I'm just saying, for a franchise mostly set in the same area, it's pretty odd it just doesn't look that way. 

44 minutes ago, Cristofle said:

I feel you. I refused to watch the SATC reboot because I 100% knew it would be terrible, and nothing I've heard about it so far makes me regret that decision, lol. I think L&O might have a better chance because of its somewhat timeless format? There are always murders for detectives to investigate and prosecutors to prosecute, and OG L&O remains unparalled in any of the longer-running/current L&O series for giving equal or even sometimes more attention to the prosecutor's office (SVU has never given as much attention to the courtroom and neither did CI, and OC isn't even trying, they just use the SVU ADA when they need one) so it's not something we're getting from other Wolf shows. Versus I think SATC worked in a certain time, in a certain period in these women's lives, and I could never see a reboot working today. And from everything I hear, it's not working, heh. L&O comes down to writing and cast chemistry. It CAN work, as long as the cast gels and the writing is sharp.

SVU never had to dwell on the courtroom scenes because it was meant to focus more on the police investigations and the personal lives of the characters. But it focuses on it a lot more than what you're willing to admit here. You make it seem like it's on CI's lack of display which is far from it. A good 40% of the show is on the courtroom stuff so don't be acting like it plays a small role here. L&O can work the format 50/50 because that's strictly what it is: LAW and ORDER. The spinoffs bare the title by association mainly not to say they're also 50/50 with the police and court like the parent show, as their basic angle is what the subtitle is proposing. And it's refreshing for them to do this because we don't need all the spinoffs mimicking the original. So one spinoff can have more police investigations with minimum court stuff, one can have strictly only police investigations and no court stuff, and one can have strictly more court stuff and no police investigation. It's the variety that matters.  

On that note, I do agree with you on Carisi being involved in the cases on OC because he's suppose to be just an SVU appointed ADA, so why he's also trying terroristic and high-profile cases from the organized crime unit is rather odd. That show should have its own ADA for that.

Edited January 5, 2022 by TotalDrama

[Cristofle]

5 minutes ago, TotalDrama said:

SVU never had to dwell on the courtroom scenes because it was meant to focus more on the police investigations and the personal lives of the characters. But it focuses on it a lot more than what you're willing to admit here. You make it seem like it's on CI's lack of display which is far from it.

I don't actually have any problem with SVU focusing somewhat more on the cop side. I think it's appropriate for that show. I think it's gone up and down over the years in terms of its focus in the courtroom. At first there was very little, then there was more when they got their own ADAs, then there was a point where they didn't really have dedicated ADAs where it slid back down. It seems to somewhat depend on the importance of the ADA as a character (Barba and Carisi have gotten decent focus and time in the courtroom). I just do think L&O provides something different, even having a second chair who does dedicated research on the case on their own, which allows more focus. It wasn't really a criticism of SVU (and no, SVU isn't nearly as cop-focused as CI was, which I also had no problem with), just an observation about what it's providing that's different than other Wolf shows. 

[TotalDrama]

13 minutes ago, Cristofle said:

I don't actually have any problem with SVU focusing somewhat more on the cop side. I think it's appropriate for that show. I think it's gone up and down over the years in terms of its focus in the courtroom. At first there was very little, then there was more when they got their own ADAs, then there was a point where they didn't really have dedicated ADAs where it slid back down. It seems to somewhat depend on the importance of the ADA as a character (Barba and Carisi have gotten decent focus and time in the courtroom). I just do think L&O provides something different, even having a second chair who does dedicated research on the case on their own, which allows more focus. It wasn't really a criticism of SVU (and no, SVU isn't nearly as cop-focused as CI was, which I also had no problem with), just an observation about what it's providing that's different than other Wolf shows. 

I don't think you caught my edit in time, but I mention Carisi's involvement on Organized Crime, which I do think is a bit out of place.

Okay fair enough. It just urks me when people complain about the spinoffs not giving much time to the court aspect like L&O does, but it's not a requirement for those shows because they're not meant to be like L&O. I do think CI could have at least had episodes focused solely on courtroom trial cases to give Goren and Eames a break and let Carver shine a bit. I'm talking different episodes down the line from the police investigation, like a police case solved in Season 1 episode 4 is continued in a trial fashion in Season 1 episode 13, or one in Season 2 episode 5 continued in trial fashion in Season 3 episode 1, like that. I will admit, the downfall of CI not showcasing court stuff is casting an ADA as a MAIN CHARACTER and having him do so little hence why it was good they got rid of him after Season 5. They didn't bother to replace Carver with another regular because they realized they didn't need an ADA tailing the detectives at the department all the time if that's all they were going to have him or her do. But then it makes me feel bad for Courtney Vance who I don't think left the show on his own accordance, so they could have given him more court stuff to do in Season 6 and onward like they did a few times in Season 1 and during that two-parter in Season 5 where we saw him shine in his arena instead of just dropping him like a bad habit altogether.

Edited January 5, 2022 by TotalDrama

[roseslg]

7 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

Really? So NYC is just constantly revamping its places after every few months? I don't believe that. Even the smaller owned businesses? I mean, the schools for sure we should be seeing and I don't care if they use real ones or fictional ones, but other than Hudson University, I've seen like maybe 30 different schools in Manhattan alone over the course of L&O, SVU, and CI and I don't believe for a second all these schools exist in this one little borough. My issue is they don't bother re-using many of the same places and characters we see. Like that random puerto rican lady who's a nosy neighbor over on 10th Street? I should be seeing her pop up dozens of times across all the shows. The Asian dude who runs the store on Spruce Street? I should be seeing him a lot. That charter school over on the east side? Why can't this be the same one we see across the shows? It's a one and done. Pitiful. All the extras we see and we don't see them anymore. The guest characters who we see a part of one case should be popping up at random many times. I'm just saying, for a franchise mostly set in the same area, it's pretty odd it just doesn't look that way. 

SVU never had to dwell on the courtroom scenes because it was meant to focus more on the police investigations and the personal lives of the characters. But it focuses on it a lot more than what you're willing to admit here. You make it seem like it's on CI's lack of display which is far from it. A good 40% of the show is on the courtroom stuff so don't be acting like it plays a small role here. L&O can work the format 50/50 because that's strictly what it is: LAW and ORDER. The spinoffs bare the title by association mainly not to say they're also 50/50 with the police and court like the parent show, as their basic angle is what the subtitle is proposing. And it's refreshing for them to do this because we don't need all the spinoffs mimicking the original. So one spinoff can have more police investigations with minimum court stuff, one can have strictly only police investigations and no court stuff, and one can have strictly more court stuff and no police investigation. It's the variety that matters.  

On that note, I do agree with you on Carisi being involved in the cases on OC because he's suppose to be just an SVU appointed ADA, so why he's also trying terroristic and high-profile cases from the organized crime unit is rather odd. That show should have its own ADA for that.

They used all the boroughs, I feel, although based in Manhattan.  Unless you are on the same corner consistently, you are not going to see the same people.  Manhattan is small geographically but is massive in terms of people, getting around, etc. So many of X. Schools, bodegas, people, you name it. I've seen episodes shot across the street from my apartment and also close to where I worked. About 2 miles apart but so different in every aspect. I liked that the show captured that about New York. You could tell if they were uptown or downtown just based on what was going on in the background.

[TotalDrama]

1 hour ago, roseslg said:

They used all the boroughs, I feel, although based in Manhattan.  Unless you are on the same corner consistently, you are not going to see the same people.  Manhattan is small geographically but is massive in terms of people, getting around, etc. So many of X. Schools, bodegas, people, you name it. I've seen episodes shot across the street from my apartment and also close to where I worked. About 2 miles apart but so different in every aspect. I liked that the show captured that about New York. You could tell if they were uptown or downtown just based on what was going on in the background.

They did use all the boroughs, but it's mainly Manhattan we see. My thing is, all these episodes, cases, people, places, etc. we're not seeing hardly of them pop up again after we see them ONCE and it's jarring. It's like we're looking more at a NYC size Manhattan than a small little borough within the NYC size area and what really kills it for me is when Manhattan's Central Park takes up like one-third of the damn area, so it's relatively smaller if we exclude that area of trees and ponds. So it shouldn't be so big that we aren't seeing the same places and people pop up at least three times each year and on each show carried over. It's like working in a building for twenty plus years and not seeing hardly any of the other workers there who's been there for years as well. Place that can't be that big for there not to be multiple interactions between the workers over the years. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. It's like these elements and people get retconned into a vortex to make room for all the drastic/constant new things they throw at us to establish in the future.

Edited January 5, 2022 by TotalDrama

[Ailianna]

2 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

Place that can't be that big for there not to be multiple interactions between the workers over the years. IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

 

3 hours ago, roseslg said:

They used all the boroughs, I feel, although based in Manhattan.  Unless you are on the same corner consistently, you are not going to see the same people.  Manhattan is small geographically but is massive in terms of people, getting around, etc. So many of X. Schools, bodegas, people, you name it. I've seen episodes shot across the street from my apartment and also close to where I worked. About 2 miles apart but so different in every aspect. I liked that the show captured that about New York. You could tell if they were uptown or downtown just based on what was going on in the background.

Manhattan is 14,600 acres with approximately 1.5 million people. There are almost 75,000 (yes, thousand) people per square mile. I lived in the same place two years in the Village and other than a few people I knew from my building, I basically never saw the same people on the street.  I don't mean to judge, but its clear you don't get just how many people live in Manhattan. And yes, plenty of restaurants, small businesses, corner stores, so on, only last months. Especially restaurants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

[wknt3]

17 hours ago, wknt3 said:

I imagine there will only be slight tweaks to update the visual look a bit. It is classic for a reason - Led Zeppelin never messed around much with the intro to "Stairway to Heaven" in live performances and the same principle applies here. Also I'm sure Dick Wolf doesn't want anything that would be too jarring in syndication or streaming marathon viewing. I'm hoping they have learned from experience across the franchise that you do best when you keep up with the times and find fresh new angles character and plot wise, but stick with the formula overall. Trying to keep up with modern trends is how we get crappy musical montage openings and overly stylized set designs in the various spinoffs!

 

16 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

Do you find Organized Crime's opening too overly stylized and has a crappy musical montage?

I don't like it as much as the other entries in the franchise, but it's fine.  By openings I was actually referring to the cold opens om SVU and Criminal Intent and not to the themes per se. The same principle applies - good "dated" beats bad "modern" any day and trying to graft parts of other shows onto older series just for the sake of keeping up to date usually ends up making things worse, As long as the content is fresh and relevant the presentation can stick to the classic formula and viewers will show up,

Edited January 6, 2022 by wknt3

[roseslg]

2 hours ago, Ailianna said:

 

Manhattan is 14,600 acres with approximately 1.5 million people. There are almost 75,000 (yes, thousand) people per square mile. I lived in the same place two years in the Village and other than a few people I knew from my building, I basically never saw the same people on the street.  I don't mean to judge, but its clear you don't get just how many people live in Manhattan. And yes, plenty of restaurants, small businesses, corner stores, so on, only last months. Especially restaurants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

They also go where the crime is, so it's not as though you are going to the same street corner. Also, walk half a block and you are in a different world completely.  It's not a neighborhood show. 

[tessaray]

Personally I don't want to see any characters from the other L&O shows.  I don't watch them (other than CI when it was on) and really only care about the Mothership. 

I'm a little worried that with so many new cast members they won't be able to pick up close to  where they left off. Not that irl workplaces don't change, but the atmosphere and the flow of the show - from the little background things to the writing. I guess next month we'll see.

[Xeliou66]

30 minutes ago, tessaray said:

Personally I don't want to see any characters from the other L&O shows.  I don't watch them (other than CI when it was on) and really only care about the Mothership. 

I'm a little worried that with so many new cast members they won't be able to pick up close to  where they left off. Not that irl workplaces don't change, but the atmosphere and the flow of the show - from the little background things to the writing. I guess next month we'll see.

I think if the show sticks with the same formula that worked for 20 seasons - the case first, plot driven format following the stories of the two separate but equally important groups in the justice system, it should be strong. If they deviate from the formula, then I will be concerned. Having 4 new characters doesn’t bother me at all, so many characters came and went, like I say, the plots are the main focus of L&O. Getting Jack McCoy back is a huge boost for the show as he’s the face of L&O.

I also don’t want crossover appearances, I would love for some characters from L&O’s past seasons to appear, but I do not want crossovers, especially with the shitshow that is current SVU - current SVU has disgraced the franchise, and Olivia Benson is unbearable, she sucks down every character that appears with her like a fucking black hole. Please keep St Olivia and her crap far away from this show.

[TotalDrama]

6 hours ago, tessaray said:

Personally I don't want to see any characters from the other L&O shows.  I don't watch them (other than CI when it was on) and really only care about the Mothership. 

I'm a little worried that with so many new cast members they won't be able to pick up close to  where they left off. Not that irl workplaces don't change, but the atmosphere and the flow of the show - from the little background things to the writing. I guess next month we'll see.

 

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I also don’t want crossover appearances, I would love for some characters from L&O’s past seasons to appear, but I do not want crossovers, especially with the shitshow that is current SVU - current SVU has disgraced the franchise, and Olivia Benson is unbearable, she sucks down every character that appears with her like a fucking black hole. Please keep St Olivia and her crap far away from this show.

Well we need to see crossovers. The shows are set in the same borough so it makes no sense to keep them a part. Like I said, don't set them so close if you don't want the connections. And if you don't watch any of the other shows or not like them, oh well. I was never a fan of CI really, though I'd watch it, and I was even wishing it was crossing over more with the others. The move to USA really put a dent in the connection as it because way less L&O and just distant from the others with one brief mention of Jack McCoy as the D.A., but that was it. You put these shows together so closely setting-wise, there NEEDS to be some crossing over. That three part crossover between the shows they were planned as far back as 2001 just never happened and for six years never did this when all three were on NBC. Odd. The fact SVU and CI never interacted ONCE while on the air together is astonishing. Thank goodness Warren Leight decided to have Kathryn Erbe appear two times on SVU to make up for that and gave Megan Wheeler a shout-out, some of the few right things he managed to do EARLY ON when he became SVU showrunner before he just got off the rails. But yes, MORE CROSSOVERS. If the Chicago shows can have them pretty much every damn episode between main characters, then I want to see that with this franchise especially since they're in much CLOSER proximity.

[TotalDrama]

8 hours ago, roseslg said:

They also go where the crime is, so it's not as though you are going to the same street corner. Also, walk half a block and you are in a different world completely.  It's not a neighborhood show. 

Couldn't edit this in my last comment, so it's a separate one.

Okay? And I'm sure many of the crimes happen on the same street corner, maybe even feet apart so on all of the shows we should be seeing the same spots and yet we do not. The shows clearly aren't neighborhood shows but you're setting them so close to each other they ought to be. You can't set something so close for the most part and yet keep them so far apart when it comes to how you display them. Why even set them all in Manhattan??? As I stated in an earlier post, they should be put on different boroughs then. I can at least suspend the idea of them not interacting or carrying over the same places and people as much.

Edited January 6, 2022 by TotalDrama

[roseslg]

3 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

Couldn't edit this in my last comment, so it's a separate one.

Okay? And I'm sure many of the crimes happen on the same street corner, maybe even feet apart so on all of the shows we should be seeing the same spots and yet we do not. The shows clearly aren't neighborhood shows but you're setting them so close to each other they ought to be. You can't set something so close for the most part and yet keep them so far apart when it comes to how you display them. Why even set them all in Manhattan??? As I stated in an earlier post, they should be put on different boroughs then. I can at least suspend the idea of them not interacting or carrying over the same places and people as much.

That's not how it works. They are not even operating out of the same precinct with the different iterations of L&O! There are over 20 precincts in Manhattan alone. There is not one police office. Last thing I'm going to say is that as someone who lived in nearly all five boroughs and who then lived in Manhattan alone for close to 15 years before moving out, the depiction of the city was realistic. I loved the use of a city as a character. Someone above mentioned SATC. I think this show did a better job at showing all aspects of the city than that show could ever dream of.

[TotalDrama]

36 minutes ago, roseslg said:

That's not how it works. They are not even operating out of the same precinct with the different iterations of L&O! There are over 20 precincts in Manhattan alone. There is not one police office. Last thing I'm going to say is that as someone who lived in nearly all five boroughs and who then lived in Manhattan alone for close to 15 years before moving out, the depiction of the city was realistic. I loved the use of a city as a character. Someone above mentioned SATC. I think this show did a better job at showing all aspects of the city than that show could ever dream of.

They don't need to operate out of the same precinct. They're in the same area so they're very close to each other. Again, Manhattan is not that big. It's not the entirety of NYC itself, if that was the case then you'd be talking but it's a small area no more than two villages put together not including one chunk of it being a gigantic park/forest; and I never understood why the landscapers even needed to put in a park that big, but okay. Hopefully someday they reduce the size of the park and build another neighborhood there. Maybe that can help make Manhattan A LITTLE bigger than the franchise makes it out to be. -_-

Anyway, I don't buy all these things happening at one time across three shows (four when TBJ was happening) and yet we don't see any interactions with the same places and characters we see one time or even see these things pop up again multiple times in the future. They're pretty much a one and done thing. This is an issue I have with most shows set in one area, but when you have a whole franchise set in it it's even more ridiculous. Criminal Minds gets a pass because they at least have the agents go across the country to different places so you don't need to see the same people pop up all the time, but L&O with its Manhattan setting? I need to see more crossovers with the characters, even the guest ones, definitely the guest ones. That also saves having to constantly get new people and establish new characters all the time. 

Edited January 6, 2022 by TotalDrama

[tessaray]

26 minutes ago, roseslg said:

 I loved the use of a city as a character. Someone above mentioned SATC. I think this show did a better job at showing all aspects of the city than that show could ever dream of.

 Me, too. Hopefully we get more of the same with S21.

[Door County Cherry]

Manhattan has 1.6 million people living there.  I don't care how small it is in size.  Being that dense in population is going to have a major impact on who one does and does not see. Routines are more likely to influence who people see on the regular. 

I do not want to see crossover stories.  If Jack shows up on SVU?  Fine.  If Carisi is consulted on a Mothership case on the Mothership?  Fine. 

But I don't want the baloney that is taking place between SVU and OC.  SVU is used to set up a continuance on OC.  There are investigations leading to a perp who is part of the larger, ongoing, gang cases on the OC. And there's no closure for the SVU case because of it. 

And I don't want what used to happen when L&O and SVU would work together or L&O and Homicide would share stories.  The character integration was so satisfying between L&O and Homicide but the reruns are frustrating.  Either the beginnings or the conclusions are missing when I watch reruns.  '

Rewatchability is a major factor for me with these shows. Crossover mysteries take away from that. 

[shapeshifter]

15 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

I do not want to see crossover stories.  If Jack shows up on SVU?  Fine.  If Carisi is consulted on a Mothership case on the Mothership?  Fine. 

But I don't want the baloney that is taking place between SVU and OC.  SVU is used to set up a continuance on OC.  There are investigations leading to a perp who is part of the larger, ongoing, gang cases on the OC. And there's no closure for the SVU case because of it. 

And I don't want what used to happen when L&O and SVU would work together or L&O and Homicide would share stories.  The character integration was so satisfying between L&O and Homicide but the reruns are frustrating.  Either the beginnings or the conclusions are missing when I watch reruns.  '

Rewatchability is a major factor for me with these shows. Crossover mysteries take away from that.

“I second that emotion.”  
Mostly I don’t want to see the OG L&O formula diluted by the SVU flavor, which is too soapy and necessarily focuses on plots that inevitably display a lot of gratuitous violence. 
But your point about the inherent problems of crossover reruns is valid too. I wonder if TPTB will consider that as a monetary problem and thereby save us from having 21 be L&OINO (L&O In Name Only).

And even if L&O:OC hadn’t devolved into Part 2 of SVU (I only watched parts of a couple of early episodes; is that still the formula?) I do not want to watch a version of L&O that is as serialized as OC seemed to be. I hate season-long villains.

Edited January 7, 2022 by shapeshifter

[illdoc]

16 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

  The character integration was so satisfying between L&O and Homicide but the reruns are frustrating.  Either the beginnings or the conclusions are missing when I watch reruns.  '

One thing I love about the DVDs---the L&O discs contain both parts (the Homicide collection contains the L&O episodes but on a separate disc (along with the Homicide movie). Oddly enough, if the crossover is between L&O and L&O:SVU, you do not get the SVU half on the L&O disc! For the record, the CSI (original series) DVDs contain the other part of the "Without a Trace" crossover, the other parts of three-way crossover with "CSI Miami" and "CSI NY" and the other half of a "CSI NY" crossover (thank you, public library, where I got the Homicide and CSI DVDs (I own the L&O)). 

[TotalDrama]

On 1/6/2022 at 11:34 PM, Door County Cherry said:

Manhattan has 1.6 million people living there.  I don't care how small it is in size.  Being that dense in population is going to have a major impact on who one does and does not see. Routines are more likely to influence who people see on the regular. 

I do not want to see crossover stories.  If Jack shows up on SVU?  Fine.  If Carisi is consulted on a Mothership case on the Mothership?  Fine. 

But I don't want the baloney that is taking place between SVU and OC.  SVU is used to set up a continuance on OC.  There are investigations leading to a perp who is part of the larger, ongoing, gang cases on the OC. And there's no closure for the SVU case because of it. 

And I don't want what used to happen when L&O and SVU would work together or L&O and Homicide would share stories.  The character integration was so satisfying between L&O and Homicide but the reruns are frustrating.  Either the beginnings or the conclusions are missing when I watch reruns.  '

Rewatchability is a major factor for me with these shows. Crossover mysteries take away from that. 

The point is, Manhattan being so small warrants all the crossovers. These people want to treat the shows like they don't co-exist in the same area here to avoid crossovers, which is what is needed when you have them set so close and even airing back-to-back. I had this issue during the 2000s when these shows were airing together. They were best taking place on different boroughs of NYC then. 

As for the crossover airings, this is a tactic that has been going on since the early 1970s. It's nothing new and is going to stick with television for many more years to come. It is frustrating when it comes to reruns because you're left hanging with the second part, especially if it's a show you don't even know about or watch and then you have to look up that episode to see the conclusion. During the reruns, the networks have handled this cliffhanger issue in ways that are both reasonable yet jarring: 

You have situations like the Magnum P.I. crossovers with Simon & Simon and Murder, She Wrote crossover where while the first parts which are the Magnum episodes that initially carried over onto S&S and MSW, the makers had alternate endings filmed for the reruns which wrapped the stories up so you weren't left hanging or researching the other show. This is somewhat good, except confusing when you have characters from the crossover show appearing on these episodes due to the continuance of the stories on their shows. It makes their roles seem random and out-of--place. It's also misleading because you're under the impression there's no more story to tell, when there actually is. If one were to watch the other shows and see these stories continuing in a random episode, you're scratching your head especially if you're familiar with the Magnum episodes where you're shown the alternate endings and here you are watching a continuation which seems off because those alternate endings wrapped the story up. How can this be happening/continuing? For example, Murder, She Wrote continued the story of a character on Magnum KILLED in the alternate/rerun ending, but not killed in the initial ending hence his role over on MSW. 

Then you have situations where networks take the second parter of episodes of the other show and stick them to the run of the first show they're airing on the regular and under that show's title. This was the case with the classic sitcom Hello, Larry which crossed over with Diff'rent Strokes and then you have Promised Land (the CBS show from the 1990s which has no relation to the new show on ABC) which crossed over with Touched by an Angel. The episodes of HL and PL were aired as DS and TBAA episodes. This often caused errors as I noticed the in-credits of the PS land episode, "airing" as an TBAA episode still had the TBAA cast members credited as guest-stars. I disagree with this display because it's also misleading like changing the ending to one episode to wrap the story up. If a person wanted to rewatch the episodes and look up the so-called two-parter of what you believe is just on one show, you'll be in for a rue awakening when you get to the episode list of whatever video site has them only to find Part 1 not 2. Then you do more research to discover Part 2 is actually associated with the OTHER show. Oh geez....

Then you have the third scenario in which you have networks who DID IT RIGHT as the case with the TNT Network. I've noticed a couple times when a L&O episode led to a crossover with Homicide: Life on the Street or Trial By Jury and the episodes of THOSE shows were placed right afterwards. I'm like, hey the network is airing these shows now? But they weren't, it was just one-time special airings to finish out the story presented on L&O that preceded them, which was very unique and cool. This is something all networks should be doing, but I understand if the rights to license episodes of another show can be iffy even for a special presentation, but it shouldn't be that bad if said network owns that other show if they also own the show this network is airing on the regular with their permission and this is a crossover thing, so there shouldn't be a problem. But hey, TV can be complicated.

But there you have it, the different cases where networks air crossover episodes differently in reruns that could either satisfy you or lead to confusion. 

On 1/7/2022 at 2:57 PM, shapeshifter said:

“I second that emotion.”  
Mostly I don’t want to see the OG L&O formula diluted by the SVU flavor, which is too soapy and necessarily focuses on plots that inevitably display a lot of gratuitous violence. 
But your point about the inherent problems of crossover reruns is valid too. I wonder if TPTB will consider that as a monetary problem and thereby save us from having 21 be L&OINO (L&O In Name Only).

And even if L&O:OC hadn’t devolved into Part 2 of SVU (I only watched parts of a couple of early episodes; is that still the formula?) I do not want to watch a version of L&O that is as serialized as OC seemed to be. I hate season-long villains.

L&O isn't going to be serialized like OC. I don't know why you'd think that when the original has its own format that it will make do. OC's format works because that's the difference it's establishing from the other shows and besides, it's hard to believe you'd have a different organized crime every episode. The angle is more-so limited than simple homicide and rape/child abuse/domestic violence cases that can happen dozens of times a year to make up individual stories in a full season of shows. If you don't like the format of OC, then you're missing the point of the whole show really. The format NEEDS to be like that.

Edited January 10, 2022 by TotalDrama

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

L&O isn't going to be serialized like OC

🤞 I hope you’re right about that.👆

[TotalDrama]

It makes no sense for it NOT to be. It's LAW AND ORDER in name only. Meaning, we need a LAW portion and an ORDER portion. The show works on this format so it can't be serialized unless it's like one of those two or three parter episodes and I don't really mind that ONCE IN A WHILE, but that's as far as it can go. It cannot go on the similar vein as Organized Crime to stretch a whole one-third season or more and why would it? Parent shows should not copy its spinoffs that are meant to be different from it.

Edited January 10, 2022 by TotalDrama

[Morrigan2575]

On 1/6/2022 at 11:34 PM, Door County Cherry said:

I don't want what used to happen when L&O and SVU would work together or L&O and Homicide would share stories.  The character integration was so satisfying between L&O and Homicide but the reruns are frustrating. 

I was about to disagree because I love the Homicide crossover eps. However, you're right, it's massively frustrating to watch in rerun because I only get the L&O episode. I don't even know if I can stream Homicide.

I agree that I'm not interested in a crossover. I stopped SVU years ago and refuse to even watch the SVU/OC Crossovers now, even though I watch OC.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Morrigan2575

[GHScorpiosRule]

34 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I don't even know if I can stream Homicide.

The episodes are on youtube. That's what I ended up doing in my rewatch of the series.

[tessaray]

They are also on the dvds. When I was ripping ours (13 seasons worth) I found out that Kodi doesn't handle crossover episodes very well. Since the Homicides don't show up, we end up skipping them and the L&O parts. My husband really dislikes crossovers in general and messing up his L&O in particular. 🙂 

[Xeliou66]

All of the characters have names now - the Detective played by Jeffrey Donovan is named Frank Cosgrove, and the ADA played by Hugh Dancy is named Nathan Price.

I can’t wait for the show to start!!

[WendyCR72]

6 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

All of the characters have names now - the Detective played by Jeffrey Donovan is named Frank Cosgrove, and the ADA played by Hugh Dancy is named Nathan Price.

I can’t wait for the show to start!!

Oooh, another Frank. For some reason, the franchise seemed to love that name, from perps to family members and now, to cops.

[Xeliou66]

2 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Oooh, another Frank. For some reason, the franchise seemed to love that name, from perps to family members and now, to cops.

Well it is a rather common name. And no main character on any of the L&O shows has been named Frank, but yes they have used the name plenty, Frank Adair from CI comes to mind, as does Frank Masucci the mob boss from all the way back in season 1, oh and Goren’s brother’s name was Frank. I’m sure there are plenty more Frank’s in the franchise. But yes I’m glad to know all of the characters names now. 

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, Xeliou66 said:

Well it is a rather common name. And no main character on any of the L&O shows has been named Frank, but yes they have used the name plenty, Frank Adair from CI comes to mind, as does Frank Masucci the mob boss from all the way back in season 1, oh and Goren’s brother’s name was Frank. I’m sure there are plenty more Frank’s in the franchise. But yes I’m glad to know all of the characters names now. 

Oh, I know it's common, and I have no real issue, just having some fun. But yeah, the name was used quite a bit, just like Alexandra was...

[wknt3]

15 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Oooh, another Frank. For some reason, the franchise seemed to love that name, from perps to family members and now, to cops.

 

15 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Well it is a rather common name. And no main character on any of the L&O shows has been named Frank, but yes they have used the name plenty, Frank Adair from CI comes to mind, as does Frank Masucci the mob boss from all the way back in season 1, oh and Goren’s brother’s name was Frank. I’m sure there are plenty more Frank’s in the franchise. But yes I’m glad to know all of the characters names now. 

 

15 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Oh, I know it's common, and I have no real issue, just having some fun. But yeah, the name was used quite a bit, just like Alexandra was...

 

Frankly my dears, I don't give a damn...

[Xeliou66]

The first episode title has been revealed - the episode is titled “The Right Thing”, but no further information is available.

[Xeliou66]

Episode synopsis has been released for the first episode, it says “Newly acquainted partners Bernard and Cosgrove investigate the murder of a notorious entertainer. A dispute over throwing out a confession creates a rift in the DA’s office”. Sounds interesting!!

[GHScorpiosRule]

53 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Episode synopsis has been released for the first episode, it says “Newly acquainted partners Bernard and Cosgrove investigate the murder of a notorious entertainer. A dispute over throwing out a confession creates a rift in the DA’s office”. Sounds interesting!!

I have to laugh because that synopsis could be applied to any of the episodes from seasons 1-20 where confessions were thrown out! But also a relief as it sounds like vintage Law & Order!

[Xeliou66]

They released preview pictures of the first episode today - the squad room and the DA’s office look just about the same as they’ve always looked. I’m both nervous and excited about the show being back, I really hope it’s just as strong as it was for the first 20 seasons, I can’t wait to see Jack McCoy again!!!!