S02.E13: The Crowning Achievement Job

[AnimeMania]

(Season Finale)

When a formidable enemy steals the Maharaja’s Crown and traps the crew in the museum, the Leverage team must find a way out and the crown before they go down for the crime.

Premiere Date: January 24, 2023

[blueray]

 I like this episode a lot, even if it was predictable that Astrid would end up on their side. I do wish we got a bit more of that conversation. We got some in a flashback.

I loved the team interactions as usual. Like Harry and Parker in the vents. And Beanna being like it's up to me... well then I just be someone else lol. And of course the end with Hardison. Now I want to see them break into NASA. Next season? ;).

Edited January 25, 2023 by blueray

[Llywela]

Okay, so Eliot and I need to have words. What's he got against bangers and mash? Does he even know what that is? It's just sausages and mashed potato, which is a perfectly delicious and hearty meal, especially when well prepared. Very amused by the idea of a food truck serving bangers and mash, though. We do have food trucks like that over here but they mostly sell hotdogs and burgers, fast food which can easily be eaten in the hand and does not require cutlery. Mashed potato requires cutlery! Sausage and chips, now, that would be a bit more like it.

I enjoyed the little heart-to-heart Sophie and Eliot had about atonement and redemption. I've always liked the dynamic between those two, since way back in the very first episode of the original show.

I like Harry, in general, and appreciate his role in this iteration of the show, I like that he tends to be goofy where Nate was more obnoxious, it works for him, but Noah Wyle occasionally pushes the goofiness too far so that it becomes a bit too cartoonish, and Harry's vent freak-out fell into that category for me.

Also, I'm sorry, show, but buildings in the UK really don't have that kind of vent. They just don't.

I appreciated Arthur using Astrid's proper title, but I appreciate more that she doesn't use it herself. She had some nice scenes with Sophie, I like that they were able to reconnect. And we got a callout to Sterling!

[Aliconehead]

Everyone keep saying this is the season of Sophie but I also see a lot of character development of Elliot.  Seeing his dad, talking about how he can be redeemed, talking about his service etc.  

[Llywela]

59 minutes ago, Aliconehead said:

Everyone keep saying this is the season of Sophie but I also see a lot of character development of Elliot.  Seeing his dad, talking about how he can be redeemed, talking about his service etc.  

Both can be true. Both Eliot and Sophie have been fleshed out considerably this season, and it's been done well, on the whole, picking up on what we already knew about them and exploring it further. The overall arc has been Sophie's, though. She's had the throughline running through the season as a whole.

[Maelstrom]

That was a fantastic episode, a fitting conclusion to last week's ep, and a great finale! So much goodness to unpack I don't know where to start.

The highlights for me were the quiet moments Sophie had with Eliot and Astrid. Her conversations with Eliot about redemption and second chances were so lovely, and for me really touched on the heart of Leverage - whatever they do or whatever job they work, these people ultimately help one another as much if not more than they help their clients. Seeing how the five of them (now seven with Harry and Breanna) have helped each other heal and grow, in ways large and small, is what really drew me in and hooked me throughout the seven years of this show, and I really *love* that this thread is still carrying through the reboot.

I also really liked Sophie and Eliot clashing about Eliot's earlier visit to Sophie's former British crewmate (the scruffy guy whose name I have totally forgotten and can't be bothered to look up) to find out what really went down back in the day. I've always found it interesting that Eliot is content to go along and follow orders, but when he feels the crew's safety is being threatened he'll do whatever he feels is necessary, whether the mastermind likes it or not. It recalled the "older brother" vibe that John Rogers often talked about in his blogs during the original run - Eliot's always looking out for crew above the job, and especially when the mastermind loses their objectivity. Is this making sense? I feel like I'm rambling. I love this show.

I would have loved more between Astrid and Sophie but I really liked the scenes we got, and I got a good laugh out of her telling Eliot to tie the ropes tighter - a glimpse of Sophie's no-nonsense influence on Astrid, perhaps. And Sophie's line at the end about taking time off to spend with Astrid was a nice touch, too. "She's family" awww

42 minutes ago, Aliconehead said:

Everyone keep saying this is the season of Sophie but I also see a lot of character development of Elliot.  Seeing his dad, talking about how he can be redeemed, talking about his service etc.  

I agree, and strongly suspect that should we be lucky enough to get a third season, it will be the season of Eliot.

Hardison!! I admit that I squeed when I saw his name in the credits. I figured (hoped) they wouldn't be cruel enough to deny us a little Hardison in the season finale. And having the crew spoof Hardison by pretending to walk away after he asked for help was classic Leverage. Now I really want to see Operation: Rescue Hardison From Space.

They can't keep talking about Interpol without giving us a Sterling shout-out, so that made me very happy (and I believe he was a Section Chief, so undoubtedly the crew McSweetined him into a few more promotions in the years since the original run ended).

Loved Breanna's "I'm Leverage?" and how she promptly set about becoming the rest of the crew - channeling both Parker and Sophie during the semi-seductive "grift and lift" she pulled on the curator, Harriet Wilson the smooth-talking lawyer, then the gruff-voiced chef in the food truck. All we needed was to see her Hardison impression, but I guess they're similar enough as it is.

48 minutes ago, Llywela said:

but Noah Wyle occasionally pushes the goofiness too far so that it becomes a bit too cartoonish, and Harry's vent freak-out fell into that category for me.

Also, I'm sorry, show, but buildings in the UK really don't have that kind of vent. They just don't.

Agree, that's always been my issue with Noah Wyle. Thankfully at least he's reined in a little more on this show than he was on Librarians, but still.

I don't think buildings anywhere have that kind of vent ;)

• Loved that all the Leverage International crews came to London to help and got to join in on the fun! Theoretically there could be any number of International spin-offs (hint hint).
• Eliot still peeved over having his British accent criticized, and Sophie tutoring him as they made their escape down the stairs.
• Astrid: "Parker thinks she's my nemesis"
• Lawyer Breanna's supposed client being called "Unindicted Corporate Conspirator #1"
• The Venties - hence Parker's rigorous training
• Shout-outs to some of Sophie's classic aliases, including Katherine Allen and Annie Croy
• Parker dancing with the woozy guards, and Eliot snapping to "stop playing with the guys"
• Parker apparently channeling Silence of the Lambs in her FBI impersonation
• Wilde's obvious offense when Sophie called his crown forgery half-decent "that was an excellent forgery!" as he was being arrested
• Hardison:
  • "I can't eat any more freeze-dried food, it tastes like baby powder!"
  • "I missed three DC movies! I don't know who's fighting who!" Very nice, writers
  • "Breanna, you're going to need an astrophysics degree"

I love this show, and am fervently hoping for a third season!

[Llywela]

4 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

Shout-outs to some of Sophie's classic aliases, including Katherine Allen and Annie Croy

Apropos of completely nothing, this sentence made me blink a few times, just because in my head I was picturing Catherine spelled with a C (I think that's how they spelled it for the fake funeral that time, and I didn't even know I'd noticed and remembered that until right this moment) and Kroy spelled with a K (because of the Kray brothers, I guess is why I assumed that). And the spelling doesn't even matter in the slightest! It just gave me a moment of 'huh?' Agree, though, it was fun to see those old aliases name-checked.

[Maelstrom]

Heh, you could be right, Llywela, but somehow despite not having seen the ep in a long while, I remembered Katherine with a K on the tombstone. (Also, I have a personal bias since I share that name and feel that spelling with a K is far superior to a C, lol). And I seem to remember seeing Croy spelled with a C somewhere - it was never spelled or shown onscreen during the episode, so maybe on John Roger's blogs? Hmm.

...

Aha! We were each right. (Clearly K is the superior letter 😉) Here we go, from  the Q&As on John Roger's blog:

Quote

@Gaby: But as Sophie is on the tombstone, will she still be called Sophie by the group? I'd assume so, it's all they've ever known, but it will be interesting. And I do wonder if this Katherine is her real name. We've been hinted at it before, but to choose Katherine twice has to mean something.

We're still up in the air what she'll be calling herself in Season 3. She chose Katherine Klive as her Boston acting alias, as Catherine Clive was one of the first women to perform Shakespeare.

https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/09/leverage-207-two-live-crew-job-post.html

(also, oops, I misremembered her last name as Allen for some reason in my original post)

Quote

@Raligh: ) THANK you for bringing Sophie back as Annie Croy. (Kroy? Croi? Croix?) That is my very favorite of her personas (probably followed by Olivia Smythe-Patel and Michelle the French Rave Girl). Question: Will Miss Croy make another reappearance? I'd love it if some of the team's roles became characters in their right. Kind of like Sam Axe's ubiquitous Chuck Finley.

I could seriously write Annie Kroy 25 hours a day. And yes, some aliases will recur, although I'd reference the Rockford Jimme Joe Meeker -- which may well be what they're homaging on Burn Notice.

https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2010/05/leverage-215-maltese-falcon-job-answers.html

Edited January 25, 2023 by Maelstrom

[Llywela]

11 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

Heh, you could be right, Llywela, but somehow despite not having seen the ep in a long while, I remembered Katherine with a K on the tombstone. (Also, I have a personal bias since I share that name and feel that spelling with a K is far superior to a C, lol). And I seem to remember seeing Croy spelled with a C somewhere - it was never spelled or shown onscreen during the episode, so maybe on John Roger's blogs? Hmm.

...

Aha! We were each right. (Clearly K is the superior letter 😉) Here we go, from  the Q&As on John Roger's blog:

https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/09/leverage-207-two-live-crew-job-post.html

(also, oops, I misremembered her last name as Allen for some reason in my original post)

https://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2010/05/leverage-215-maltese-falcon-job-answers.html

😀 My middle name is Katherine with a K - but the Shakespeare Catherine Clive could be the reason I pictured it with a C! (I still see it as a C on that headstone, in my memory, but I'm the first to admit my memory is flawed!)

I'm almost certain Annie Kroy's name was meant as a nod to the Kray twins, notorious London gangsters that they were.

[Chaos Theory]

I agree with Eliot London is wonderful for certain things…food is not one of them.   I did find one thing I liked and it wasn’t bangers and mash.  It was Fish & Chips.  I spent 5 days eating nothing but fish and Chips in London. 

Noah Wyle is goofy but it works on this show mainly because he isn’t the lead or the leader and isn’t really trying to be.  

My favorite moment was Wilde being pissed that Sophie called his forgery “half decent.”  

I like Astrid and how the show brought Sterling into the plot.  I wouldn’t mind if Astrid is the new Sterling.  

Edited January 26, 2023 by Chaos Theory

[Prevailing Wind]

Astrid searches "Sophie Devereaux" and almost immediately gets a call from Sterling, giving her a new assignment, elsewhere. Astrid doesn't tell Sophie exactly what or where the assignment is.  I think her new assignment just might be "Leverage International."

[chaifan]

5 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

I agree with Eliot London is wonderful for certain things…food is not one of them.   I did find one thing I liked and it wasn’t bangers and mash.  It was Fish & Chips.  I spent 5 days eating nothing but fish and Chips in London. 

Oh, I disagree!  I was in London 5 years ago, and thought the food was excellent!  First time there since the late 80's, when yes, the food deserved the reputation it had.  We had pub food (yes, fish & chips) and went to a few nice restaurants.  We really enjoyed everything we had. 

OK, back to the episode...

I liked this better than Ep 12.  I liked Astrid working with Sophie and the crew, and that it's left open for Astrid to return.  I'm glad they looped Sterling in, even if just by mention.  Hardison's appearance at the end was fun, and Harry had a good fake out there.  I hope we get a 3rd season, but if AH isn't going to return full time they're going to have to get creative again with a good excuse for his absence. 

[Mirabelle]

They can always send him to the Antarctic or some deep sea research station for six months. 

[Llywela]

I've been thinking about it and the one thing that really bugs me about this story is the timeline. They kept saying that Sophie's marriage to the Duke and her abandonment of 10-year-old Astrid was only 20 years ago, which seems far, far too recent, to me. I mean, 20 years ago would be early 2000s, only about 5 years before the original show, and we were told here that this Ramsay fellow was the one who trained Sophie into the grifter she is today. But that can't be true if she was only with him 20 years ago - it just doesn't leave enough time for the long, long career as a grifter that we were told she had pre-series, for the years she spent playing cat-and-mouse with Nate all over the globe, or for the other backstory snippets that have been dropped over the years. I mean, when we first met learned about the Duchess persona, way back in the King George Job, we also met the Duke's aunt, who recognised Sophie as Charlotte, and when they discussed their shared past it all sounded much longer ago than only 5/6 years, as this new timeline would have it.

I get that saying 20 years allows them to have a younger Astrid, and perhaps also makes Sophie seem a little younger than we know she should be, but 30 years would feel more plausible. She'd have been young enough then for Ramsay to have taught and shaped her (although they'd have to change the Arthur backstory a little as well - not that 20 years for theft was ever plausible to begin with).

That timeline wonkiness bugs me even more than the holes in the writers' understanding of how the peerage works, and that's been bugging me since the King George Job!  Seriously, I re-watched The Lonely Hearts Job last night, and had to grit my teeth when Sophie introduced herself as 'Lady Charlotte Prentiss' and Emma Caulfield's character immediately, based on that, identified her as a Duchess, which is wrong in so many ways - starting with the fact that almost every woman within the peerage system is styled as 'Lady So-and-So' except for duchesses. So between that and the fact that duke/duchess is the least common title within the aristocracy, 'duchess' really shouldn't be the first assumption on hearing someone styled as 'Lady So-and-So', because she's far more likely to be the wife of a baronet or daughter of an earl, or something. And don't get me started on the frequently repeated implication that duchess = princess, which is not true at all. The King George Job tried to make out that a barony is a royal title, as well, which is also not true at all. People who do not know how the peerage works should not attempt to write about it.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Llywela

[Sarah 103]

I knew the team would get out of it and I loved seeing how they managed to pull it off. I loved seeing Breanna become all of the other team members in a single episode. It was a great way to demonstrate how much she has learned from each of them, and even if she doesn't have Elliot's skill set, she can still impersonate his voice/speech pattern. (It's a distinctive speech pattern).

I felt terrible for Elliot. It's heartbreaking that he thinks he is irredemable and that what he has done in the past is so terrible there is no coming back from it, but he will help, defend, and protect his current team with everything he has. 

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

I knew the team would get out of it and I loved seeing how they managed to pull it off. I loved seeing Breanna become all of the other team members in a single episode. It was a great way to demonstrate how much she has learned from each of them, and even if she doesn't have Elliot's skill set, she can still impersonate his voice/speech pattern. (It's a distinctive speech pattern).

The actress did an amazing job of mimicking the most recognizable traits of each of the team. 

 

3 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

I felt terrible for Elliot. It's heartbreaking that he thinks he is irredemable and that what he has done in the past is so terrible there is no coming back from it, but he will help, defend, and protect his current team with everything he has.

Same, and I feel like he is redeeming himself every time the team helps someone, but also in the way he embraces the "every man" that is peripheral to the con, like the security guards, the workers on the oil rig, the security and maintenance staff at the college, etc. He doesn't just use them and move on, he seems to really care about the blue collar workers they come across. Of course, I don't know quite how dark he's gone in his past but I can't see him killing puppies so he's still redeemable in my eyes. 

[DoctorAtomic]

On 1/24/2023 at 6:47 PM, blueray said:

I like this episode a lot, even if it was predictable that Astrid would end up on their side. I do wish we got a bit more of that conversation. We got some in a flashback.

For the weight of actually flipping Astrid, which I buy, I think we're owed a little more. 

I knew when Sophie 'found' the crown that it was fake because Parker talking about the 'pressure points' at the end of the last episode had to be a major hint.

I totally missed that the London Leverage team were the fill-in police, even though they clearly featured the woman front and center. I pinged her but just missed it. 

On 1/25/2023 at 11:23 AM, Maelstrom said:

The highlights for me were the quiet moments Sophie had with Eliot and Astrid. Her conversations with Eliot about redemption and second chances were so lovely, and for me really touched on the heart of Leverage - whatever they do or whatever job they work, these people ultimately help one another as much if not more than they help their clients.

Harry can talk to Sophie on a different wavelength because he's outside coming in. Eliot can *speak* to her because they've been *in*. That conversation was well written, and critical to the also well-written take down of Wilde at the end with Sophie calling out that his choices since were on him and not her.

As I said last week, Wilde doesn't have the chops to outsmart them, and he didn't. I do think it played out fair because he had the obsession with revenge and his hubris was his own downfall. Because Sophie is a better criminal. He wasn't on the same level, and he got beat. Taking the two episodes as the whole, I think it played out fair. Sophie has been shown to have some moments of doubt this season, and she's overcome that now. 

I did think Hardison was going to factor into the resolution, but I do think that Breanna standing alone was the right character choice. Her 'Harry' was the most enjoyable for me. 

I certainly think there are more stories to tell. In the last season, we had Sophie reluctant and joining one last run; this time Sophie doubted herself. A third season should be Sophie at the height of her powers. I'd actually like to see more 'smaller' stories. That's how this show started. If Harry maintains his own private pro bono shingle, this is a natural in.

 

On 1/25/2023 at 1:18 PM, Chaos Theory said:

It was Fish & Chips.  I spent 5 days eating nothing but fish and Chips in London.

Did you go to any hole in the wall places where they just serve it in the newspaper-type wrap? It's like getting cheap sushi in Tokyo on the little plates. Just blows it away anything here. 

[Llywela]

Ah, someone on Tumblr has the same issues with the timeline as I have, but has gone one step further and actually plotted out the dates given in various episodes, which highlights just how much they don't tie up: here

And to summarise the post:

Quote

1989 – Jean Mettier dies (so the painting of Sophie from ”The Frame-Up Job” must have been made mid-80s, suggesting Sophie is born late 60s at the latest)

1997 – Beaten to stealing the Vermeer at the Louvre by the Jackal (The Jackal)

1997 – The Copenhagen job with Stark (Two Live Crew Job)

1998 – The Berlin Politic Job with Stark (Two Live Crew job)

1999 – Steals the David from the Vatican (”10 years ago” according to the First David Job in 2009)

2001 – Sophie and Nate meet for the first time (”Paris 7 years ago” according to the pilot in 2008)

2002 – The Duke DIES (”dear William gone these 8 years” in ”King George Job” 2010)

2003 – Sophie sees Astrid for the last time (”20 years ago” according to Redemption 2x12+13) and escapes Ramsey

2004 – Matevan fraud (mentioned in Harry Wilson Job)

So not only does that technically mean the Duke died BEFORE Sophie left him, that can be fudged with rounding a bit up or down, but:

Are we to believe that while she was married to the Duke, she was simultaneously running around Europe, stealing paintings and doing long cons, and flirting with Nate Ford? Would Ramsey really let her work with other crews like Stark so much? And when would she have time to amass all those caches of treasure? I mean, if she stole the David on Ramsey’s order, would he really let her keep it??

I feel like it would make much more sense for the Ramsey time to have been late 80s/early 90s, give it a few extra years for the marriage to the Duke, and then she makes her break for it in say ~95 or so, and spends the next 10 years establishing herself as a grifter extraordinaire on her own terms, while the Duke slowly dies of a broken heart and drinking over a period of several years, rather than it being a quick process of a few months at most.

(Auntie from the King George Job says ”he never blamed you” and ”the drink helped” - I recruited someone unfamiliar with the show to watch that scene and give me a rough interpreted timeline, and they said 'it sounds like the blame thing was something they talked about many times over a longer period of time, so that he had ample opportunity to change his mind if he wanted, and that he was drinking but also had periods when he was doing better, so I would guess 4-8 years from the time Sophie left him until he died'. That was pretty much my initial interpretation of that scene as well, as far as I remember it.)

I agree with the poster that Redemption got the timeline wrong, Sophie's time with Ramsay should have been nearer to 30 years ago than 20, probably following almost immediately on from her time with the artist Mettier, perhaps.

[Prevailing Wind]

That was one good thing about the AOL X-Philes discussion room. The producers joined in and the fans kept them apprised of timelines, etc., that they had forgotten.  More writers/showrunners need to do that. LOL

[KittenPokerCheater]

On 1/27/2023 at 3:44 AM, Llywela said:

I've been thinking about it and the one thing that really bugs me about this story is the timeline

Shhh.  Don't poke the cranky tv timelines.  They're like sleeping bears.

😎😜

[andromeda331]

Hardison! I hope they do break into NASA. That would be fun to watch. I love that he misses three DC movies and doesn't know who's fighting who.

They mentioned Sterling! I hope we get to see him next season.

I'm glad Astrid was in on the con. Because Sophie was family. That was really sweet. I liked Eliot having a hard time tying her up. 

I loved seeing how they ended up getting Arthur.

[Orbert]

With this episode I finally (!) figured out what doesn't work for me about the new show.  It's the tone.  The original was a more serious show, dealt with some serious issues (death of a child, Nate's alcoholism, etc) but still had its light moments.  Here, they've gone ahead and given us a lighter-hearted show.  But it's been so goofy sometimes that I wasn't sure we were even supposed to take it seriously.  There's no way some of the bad guys should have been fooled by this team of clowns.  That's okay; I know a lot of people think the new format is more fun, and yeah, I've laughed a few times.

But when you've gone full slapstick (Eliot joyously crashing into things while yelling "I've never driven a forklift before!", Jamie and Jamie, etc) it's hard to turn around and get serious.  There were some moments between Sophie and Astrid, and Sophie and Eliot, and others this episode, that were quite serious and should have been quite touching, but I found them hard to take seriously after watching them standing around for ten minutes with alarms going off, saying "We, should really get out of here.  Hmm.  Yeah."  I couldn't figure out if they were playing that for laughs or what, because it didn't make any sense.

I like the characters, including newbies Breanna and Harry, but the actors themselves I'm not sure have the chops to bring the heavy when the time comes.  I think it worked better when the overall tone was more serious.

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't mind the lighter tone because they've essentially been at it for so long. However, I think part of the tone may be that they're basically invincible. There's infinite resources; money *and* other Leverage teams. It's almost too easy for them. 

The other part is there isn't any real foil. We knew Nate was going to 'win' against Sterling, but I bought in that Sterling was on their level. Not that I want them outwitting Interpol all the time, but even the marks are nowhere near there level. I don't want them getting knocked down a peg either because I like that they help people the system doesn't work for. 

This happened with Hustle too. 

I'd like to see a job with no tech at all either. 

[Orbert]

Hustle did run into the same issue in later seasons.  They were downright cocky, knowing that they'd be able to con the bad guys and smirking the whole time.  That too got old.  Hustle also started with the built-in conceit of breaking the fourth wall, literally smirking at the camera sometimes, so that was part of the show, but anything can get old.

I like seeing the bad guys get taken down a peg.  Who wouldn't?  But every one of those amazing cons pulled off by Nate's original team (and the new team has had some good ones as well) were also written by a talented team of writers.  I don't think the writing on Redemption is up to the standards of original Leverage.  Sure, it's tough to come up with a really great con every week, with at least a good twist or two, and worthy adversaries, but that is what most of us watch the show for.  As I said, I do like the characters and I'm glad they're having fun while doing what they do.  But I don't want it to devolve into outright silliness.  It takes some damned good writing to balance everything, and the show is good, but the balance hasn't felt quite right sometimes.

[DoctorAtomic]

I meant I didn't want to see the Leverage team get knocked down a peg. The people they are conning, yes. There's plenty who benefit from the system that step on the regular people that I want them to take down. 

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I meant I didn't want to see the Leverage team get knocked down a peg. The people they are conning, yes. There's plenty who benefit from the system that step on the regular people that I want them to take down. 

Me too. That's half the reason I watch the show. Especially since it so rarely happens in real life.

[DoctorAtomic]

I would just like to see it more earned. 

[Orbert]

I think I see what you mean.  The people they're going after just aren't that impressive in general.  Bad people for sure, definitely deserving to be taken down, but not really on the same level as some of the real badass corporations we've seen.  It's almost too easy for the Leverage team to outwit these folks.

I'd still say that that comes down to the writing.  The job has to be complex enough to be interesting, difficult enough to be a challenge, and the bad guys have to be truly deserving of a takedown.  And then of course, the Leverage team has to put a con together that will take them down.  When Leverage finished its original five-season run, I was bummed for sure, but there was also a feeling that they'd pretty much done everything that they could do.  "Leverage International" seemed to promise some bigger and more interesting cases, and we've seen a few interesting things along the way, but overall Redemption just doesn't have the writing.

[Prevailing Wind]

14 minutes ago, Orbert said:

but overall Redemption just doesn't have the writing.

And it doesn't have Nate.

[Orbert]

Noah Wyle is okay, but he's not on Timothy Hutton's level.  Similarly, Aleyse Shannon is okay, but she's no substitute for Aldis Hodge.

Maybe they realized that they weren't going to have the depth in the acting pool that original Leverage had, so they went with the lighter tone, making it more "fun", and giving the new show its own vibe.

[Mabinogia]

6 hours ago, Prevailing Wind said:

And it doesn't have Nate.

That's one of my favorite things about Redemption. I never understood the appeal of Tim Hutton. I don't think he's a better actor than anyone else and I always found him a bit...slimy/skeevy. Even back during Nero Wolfe, which I stopped watching because of him. The fact that I got through all of Leverage is a testament to the rest of the cast. 

The lack of Aldis Hodge is my least favorite thing about Redemption. I do miss his energy and his relationship with Elliot. Oddly, I miss their interactions more than him and Parker. Maybe because what little of him we're getting tends to be more Parker oriented and since he's not really there that makes sense, they are a couple, but I loved his brotherly relationship with Elliot as well. 

For me, Redemption seems less focused on the Con of the Week and is more focused on the team and their redemptions. First season was Harry, this seaon is Sophie, and there was a hint that if we get a next season that could be Elliot's redemption (which I hope we do because I'd love to get more into his characters story. 

Personally, I really like it because, as has been said, the old Leverage pretty much nailed the Con of the Week and there really isn't much left to do on that front. So rather than just rehashing what the original run was, they are approaching the show from a different angle. As someone who is here more for the team than the cons, I dig it. But if you're more into the con side of things I could see how the reboot might not live up to the original.

[DoctorAtomic]

You could do both though. It's really more a matter of a good foil as the mark of the week than anything. And they've had some good ones here. Cons themselves can be repeated because they work. It's just in general, they're basically bringing nuclear weapons to a knife fight. 

[rur]

I think they had to take the show in a slightly new direction because Timothy Hutton wasn't there. I imagine the producers knew that the new series would be compared to the old, and  changing things slightly because it wasn't the same crew would probably avoid some initial complaints about how the show wasn't the same without him. 

Personally, I'm enjoying the redemption of the characters, and I look forward to another season, although I suspect it'll begin with them coming home from completing the NASA job. 

(I'm also glad we at least got a Sterling shout out.)

[Llywela]

I don't miss Nate at all. I think killing him off was the right decision to kick off this new iteration of the show, bringing it back just to do more of the same wouldn't have worked. The way his death was used in season one as a launchpad to bring Sophie back into the game and move her development forward was perfect, and I've enjoyed everything they've done with her since, stepping out of Nate's shadow into the spotlight.

The show itself is far from perfect, I agree, but I'm okay with that. Noah Wyle has his limitations, but I like that they haven't tried to make him another Nate, but instead brought him in as Nate's polar opposite and explored how that dynamic works. I really like Aleyse Shannon, and again, I like that there has been no attempt to make her Hardison 2.0. Breanna might fill broadly the same function within the team, but she is a very different person and that's okay, that's how it should be. The group dynamic isn't the same as it was in the original show, but it shouldn't be, because that was then and this is now, everyone is older and there is a different mix of personalities, so I'm more than good with that.

I do regret, mind, that placing Sophie at the forefront means we still haven't ever really got to see Parker in action as the mastermind, but I do think that handing the reins to Sophie was totally in character for her, she isn't precious about that kind of thing at all, and the past two seasons have done a good job of showing how much Parker has continued to learn and grow since the original.

I agree that the overall tone of the show is different in this reboot, but I expected that. The original show was lightning in a bottle and I don't think they were ever going to recapture that, not totally. On the whole, though, I'm happy with what we've got in this reboot, imperfect though it is.

[DoctorAtomic]

Nate also had a revenge factor in him, and the rest went along with it. Leverage International is more altruistic in a sense. 

[DearEvette]

21 hours ago, Prevailing Wind said:

And it doesn't have Nate.

I liked Tim Hutton as Nate in the OG, but a lot of the undercurrent of the OG show was seething with his trauma.  It was still a fun and great show, but his loss was always there hovering.  There is a reason Season 2 is my least favorite -- and not just because of Gina Bellman being gone half the season and Jeri Ryan whom I am not a fan of taking her place -- because it really leaned into Nate's alcoholism and nihilism which was a downer.  It got better as the seasons when on, but I am not really missing Nate that much in the sense I recognize this is a different animal almost 15 years later.

Also, I think what is key in a show like this and what they managed to get right that so many shows get wrong when introducing new characters as part of an established group is as @Llywela pointed out, they didn't try to re-create older characters in new people, but instead allowed them to be their own characters and they didn't allow the new characters to cannibalize the show to make them seem super special.  Instead they managed to recreate the really good cast chemistry of the OG.

21 hours ago, Orbert said:

I think I see what you mean.  The people they're going after just aren't that impressive in general.  Bad people for sure, definitely deserving to be taken down, but not really on the same level as some of the real badass corporations we've seen.  It's almost too easy for the Leverage team to outwit these folks.

I think this iteration of the show has re-calibrated to go after the 'new' type of criminal that has arisen with tech.  We see them going after bad Tech bros instead of Wall street types and shady personal data miners instead of ...well...shady mine owner.  Like the gig economy they hail from, they have a smaller overhead and a smaller footprint but can be just as harmful devastating to people so you don't have the same punch of the team infiltrating big companies and taking out those because the field has widened.

[Johannah]

On 2/6/2023 at 2:21 PM, Prevailing Wind said:

And it doesn't have Nate.

I think you nailed it - at least for me.  I love the new version, but with the original, when things went wrong, Nate had a Plan B and Plan C already in place.  It seemed more calculated.  In this version, it seems, at least to me, that when something doesn't go as planned, they correct on the fly.  This can seem more hectic, and as such, add to the comedic aspect.  Both approaches work, obviously, and I enjoy both, but it was Nate's ability to see the big picture or all permutations of how the con could unfold, that fascinated me.

Just my opinion.

[Johannah]

3 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I liked Tim Hutton as Nate in the OG, but a lot of the undercurrent of the OG show was seething with his trauma.  It was still a fun and great show, but his loss was always there hovering.  There is a reason Season 2 is my least favorite -- and not just because of Gina Bellman being gone half the season and Jeri Ryan whom I am not a fan of taking her place -- because it really leaned into Nate's alcoholism and nihilism which was a downer.  It got better as the seasons when on, but I am not really missing Nate that much in the sense I recognize this is a different animal almost 15 years later.

Also, I think what is key in a show like this and what they managed to get right that so many shows get wrong when introducing new characters as part of an established group is as @Llywela pointed out, they didn't try to re-create older characters in new people, but instead allowed them to be their own characters and they didn't allow the new characters to cannibalize the show to make them seem super special.  Instead they managed to recreate the really good cast chemistry of the OG.

I think this iteration of the show has re-calibrated to go after the 'new' type of criminal that has arisen with tech.  We see them going after bad Tech bros instead of Wall street types and shady personal data miners instead of ...well...shady mine owner.  Like the gig economy they hail from, they have a smaller overhead and a smaller footprint but can be just as harmful devastating to people so you don't have the same punch of the team infiltrating big companies and taking out those because the field has widened.

I agree with everything you said, except I was one of the few that actually liked Jeri Ryan.  I like Gina Bellman, too, but somehow have a hard time buying that every man falls immediately under her spell from across the room.  Yes, she's beautiful, but so are other women in the room.  I feel Sophie's attraction and "spell" is how she makes the mark feel while talking to them.  Jeri Ryan is a more conventional beauty and I can see her as mesmerizing from across the room.  Sophie's character is the more intriguing, but I liked Jeri, too.

[Mabinogia]

5 hours ago, DearEvette said:

Also, I think what is key in a show like this and what they managed to get right that so many shows get wrong when introducing new characters as part of an established group is as @Llywela pointed out, they didn't try to re-create older characters in new people, but instead allowed them to be their own characters and they didn't allow the new characters to cannibalize the show to make them seem super special.  Instead they managed to recreate the really good cast chemistry of the OG.

Agree. Before Redemption started, when we just found out that Noah Wiley was coming on and that Hardison's foster sister was coming on I was worried they would be the same characters just with different actors, but both Harry and Brianna are very much their own characters. Harry, as was said, is pretty much the opposite of Nate and Brianna does remind me of Hardison but only in the way two people who grew up as siblings are kind of alike. I like the change of energy they bring to the team, as well as the change in energy because the team are older, they've grown. I am very grateful that the team, and the show have changed over the years. 

I like both versions for different reasons and that, to me, is a great thing. 

[Llywela]

9 hours ago, Johann said:

I think you nailed it - at least for me.  I love the new version, but with the original, when things went wrong, Nate had a Plan B and Plan C already in place.  It seemed more calculated.  In this version, it seems, at least to me, that when something doesn't go as planned, they correct on the fly.  This can seem more hectic, and as such, add to the comedic aspect.  Both approaches work, obviously, and I enjoy both, but it was Nate's ability to see the big picture or all permutations of how the con could unfold, that fascinated me.

Just my opinion.

It's true that this team doesn't have as many fallback plans as Nate used to have. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, though, or a reason to consider this show worse than the original. The team has a different dynamic now, is run by a different leader. It makes sense that the planning style would also be different. That's realistic, to me. I don't want it to be exactly the same as it was. The characters are not interchangeable and nor should they be. The team doesn't have anyone now who can fill the exact role that Nate did, because Nate is gone, but they now operate in a slightly different way, and that's okay, that works for them.

I always liked Tara, for the record.

Edited February 8, 2023 by Llywela

[andromeda331]

I like Tara. My problem with her in season two was that she could do everyone's job. She could grift, hit, and found more information then Hardison in one episode. I loved Leverage because all five of them had different skills. It was fun watching them learn each other's roles. It wasn't as fun with Tara who could do everything on her own. 

[Sarah 103]

On 2/7/2023 at 3:33 AM, Llywela said:

I do regret, mind, that placing Sophie at the forefront means we still haven't ever really got to see Parker in action as the mastermind, but I do think that handing the reins to Sophie was totally in character for her, she isn't precious about that kind of thing at all, and the past two seasons have done a good job of showing how much Parker has continued to learn and grow since the original.

If there is a season 3, I want to see an episode where Parker is the mastermind and Sophie isn't there for most of the episode. In the original series, sometimes there would be episodes that would split up the cast, like "Girls Night Out"/"Boys Night Out" (divide based on gender) or "The Frame-Up Job"/"The Rundown Job." (divide based on generation). I would love it if they split up the team and we got to see Parker be mastermind with some or all of the team. 

[DoctorAtomic]

There could be a job where it makes sense to switch roles anyway, so they could do it any time.

[andromeda331]

On 2/10/2023 at 12:05 PM, Sarah 103 said:

If there is a season 3, I want to see an episode where Parker is the mastermind and Sophie isn't there for most of the episode. In the original series, sometimes there would be episodes that would split up the cast, like "Girls Night Out"/"Boys Night Out" (divide based on gender) or "The Frame-Up Job"/"The Rundown Job." (divide based on generation). I would love it if they split up the team and we got to see Parker be mastermind with some or all of the team. 

I'd like to see that. Parker was the mastermind for a long time I want to see how she does it. I'd like to see if Hardison got any better at being a mastermind. While he did mess up in the Gold Job it was his first time and he some good ideas.

[aradia22]

I would actually love to see a museum exhibit on Indian jewelry.

The speed (or lack thereof) with which the team moved after Arthur's call was just ridiculous. So much dithering... they deserved to be separated by the security gate. 

Harry panicking in the vents was very silly but I did laugh.

Eliot's speech about still feeling unredeemable felt like a darkness that hasn't been cloaking Eliot for a while. I haven't really investigated who is writing the episodes but there does seem to be a mix of stuff that's very loyal to the original series and characterization that either feels like character development or else sloppy new stuff from writers who aren't as familiar with the characters.

Breanna doing an impression of Harry wasn't particularly accurate but it was a fun idea. It would have been better if she'd adopted Harry's touch and go New Orleans accent. Breanna as Eliot was funnier.

lol, what? Astrid is supposed to be THIRTY? (10 years old + 20 years)

OK, if Astrid has been looking for Sophie/Charlotte all these years then it's even more unbelievable that she didn't recognize her.

Clarice Starling? Come on now... that movie won an Oscar. 

Breanna drugging the tea was brilliant. No useless details. And FINALLY we get Leverage International as backup.

Arthur wasn't a great villain (and I still don't know how he managed so much of the con on his own) but he was appropriately smug. I really wanted Eliot to punch him in the face. I guess that counts for something. I'm disappointed that no one did punch him in the face even if the score is settled.

With all the focus on Astrid and Sophie, it was easy to ignore how TRULY AWFUL the portrait of the Duke was. That barely looks like a person.

Oh, NOW they mention Sterling. And I was a little sad McSweeten and Taggert got no mention when the FBI swooped in.

I did find it sweet that Astrid called Sophie family at the end. I wish the onscreen reconciliation had been part of the flashback. I'm glad they wrote in that second reconciliation in front of the painting. I suppose I can buy that Astrid trusted Sophie enough to go along with the plan to catch Arthur and decide how to proceed afterwards. Anyway, they found a good actress. I hope Astrid returns. 

[Llywela]

25 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

lol, what? Astrid is supposed to be THIRTY? (10 years old + 20 years)

It's worse than that. They want us to believe that Sophie's history with the Duke, Astrid and Ramsay happened only 20 years ago - which we know, from five seasons of the original show and two seasons of this show, can't possibly be the case. I mean, 20 years ago is only a few years before the start of the original show - Sophie was already leading Nate a merry dance by then. We've had dozens of off the cuff references to her past over the years, none of which tally with the notion of her being tied to Ramsay at the same time. If they'd said 30 years ago, that would be more believable - 30 years ago, I can believe she was tied to Ramsay as securely as indicated here, and that still leaves plenty of time for her to escape, establish herself independently, and lead the pre-show life we've always been told about. But not 20 years ago, that doesn't fit the established timeline at all.

I'm just not clear on why they screwed up the timeline like that - because they wanted Astrid to be young rather than cast her as a 40yo, or because they wanted Sophie to seem younger than she actually is?

ETA

Quote

Eliot's speech about still feeling unredeemable felt like a darkness that hasn't been cloaking Eliot for a while.

I dunno. I think it is consistent with Eliot's established character that he doesn't believe he can be redeemed. I think that is something he has always believed, since long before we first met him, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to learn that he still believes it, because he still did all the things that he feels make him unredeemable and no amount of good works can change that fact. I think he is capable of being relatively light most of the time because he has come to terms with his self-perceived status as 'irredeemable'. I think it is something he has internalised completely, something he simply accepts as part of who he is - someone whose past can't be redeemed, but who is still capable of good works. Someone whose good works now can mitigate but not change what they did in the past.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Llywela

[aradia22]

Quote

I knew when Sophie 'found' the crown that it was fake because Parker talking about the 'pressure points' at the end of the last episode had to be a major hint.

I got distracted by both crowns looking like they came from Party City. The death masks were at least a slightly plausible prop. And you can get good fake jewelry!

Quote

I'm just not clear on why they screwed up the timeline like that - because they wanted Astrid to be young rather than cast her as a 40yo, or because they wanted Sophie to seem younger than she actually is?

Sigh... it's okay for women to age. It's okay for Sophie to be older. It's okay for Astrid to be older. It's even okay if their characters are older than they are. (Wikipedia says Alexandra Park is 33.) I could maybe see the argument that a younger Astrid would be more forgiving but that seems like a very tiny reason to mess up the whole timeline. 

I agree with the tone and invincibility issues and I've said as much on other episode threads. For me, it's also pacing. I don't mind a silly tone if the bad guy isn't that bad or the situation demands some levity. I expect them to win in the end but with the invincibility it feels like any old nonsense, including wacky hijinks, can happen on the way from point A to point B because none of it matters. Pacing is part of this. It's okay for things to be silly at first if they then hit a wall and have to take the case seriously. I think that happened a little with the MLM episode but only on the part of the blond woman facing off with Sophie. The husband stuff stayed pretty silly throughout until he was actually trying to attack Harry, which was still mostly played for laughs. Another work around is taking the case seriously but leaving room for charisma. Not silliness, but an enjoyable grift whether it's a glamorous party or manipulating someone as part of the con. I don't know that there's a lot of budget for glamorous parties (I'd rather they splash out on one or two rather than cutting corners on so many) but Harry romancing Carol or Eliot befriending the security/janitorial staff at the college feel like charisma plays. It was a tiny part of the episode but Breanna as a reporter flattering the museum director was a version of this. I'm too tired to keep unpacking this but basically I feel like if the structure of the episodes was altered, you could have levity and seriousness and episodes would still feel tense because most procedurals manage to feel tense even when you know they're going to figure out who did it by the end. While they weren't the same as the original series, I think some of the reboot season 1 episodes did a better job with the pacing. 

[Llywela]

40 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

Sigh... it's okay for women to age. It's okay for Sophie to be older. It's okay for Astrid to be older. It's even okay if their characters are older than they are. (Wikipedia says Alexandra Park is 33.) I could maybe see the argument that a younger Astrid would be more forgiving but that seems like a very tiny reason to mess up the whole timeline.

Preaching to the choir!

To be fair to the show, the Duke/Sophie/Astrid timeline is only a tiny bit wonky. In the King George Job we were told that the Duke had died 8 years previously, which would be 2002, so Astrid's age is about right. Even them saying she last saw Sophie 20 years ago is almost right, if we assume they are rounding down and it was nearer to 25 (there needs to be enough time between Sophie leaving and the Duke's death for him to drink himself to death). It's the Ramsay angle that doesn't fit with what we know of Sophie's past - early 2000s is just too late in Sophie's career for her to be that reliant on a boss she was that afraid of, especially since we know she was working with other teams by the late 90s and leading Nate a merry dance by the early 2000s. That's the part that needed to be earlier to be plausible. If they'd run this Astrid story without including Ramsay as an integral part of it, it would make more sense.

[andromeda331]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:18 AM, Llywela said:

I dunno. I think it is consistent with Eliot's established character that he doesn't believe he can be redeemed. I think that is something he has always believed, since long before we first met him, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to learn that he still believes it, because he still did all the things that he feels make him unredeemable and no amount of good works can change that fact. I think he is capable of being relatively light most of the time because he has come to terms with his self-perceived status as 'irredeemable'. I think it is something he has internalised completely, something he simply accepts as part of who he is - someone whose past can't be redeemed, but who is still capable of good works. Someone whose good works now can mitigate but not change what they did in the past.

I agree. In the Big Bang Job we learn he worked for Damian Monroe and Eliot says everyone who ever worked for him has innocent blood on their hands including him. That he'll never be washed free of that. In season five the French Connection he also mentions wet work jobs that went over the line. I really do think he thinks he can't be redeemed.