shapeshifter February 5 Share February 5 Originally aired February 1, 2024 Quote When a young woman is strangled, Yee connects the MO to a potential serial offender, leading Riley to revisit a case that went cold on his watch. Price makes a risky move to bait one of their own on the stand. 1 1 Link to comment
ML89 February 5 Share February 5 OMG this one was an absolute mess. Epitomized by Price seemingly bringing in evidence in his closing? The jury is wincing at his description of the murder as if it's the opening, not the close? Did I miss something, like Riley? Riley must be Super Cop if he slugged a superior officer while drunk and is still a first grade detective? He should have replaced Logan at Staten Island for that. I don't have any idea what is going on at L&O these days. None. 6 1 Link to comment
Xeliou66 February 5 Share February 5 I liked this one decent enough, even though parts of the plot seemed done to give us more info on Vince’s backstory. That being said, I’m liking Vince a lot, I wasn’t sure how a new detective would do, but I like him, and I like how he has a friendship with Dixon. It was nice to see Dixon and Price meet up, I like police/DA interactions. Riley and Shaw have a nice rapport and both seem rather laid back and they are an enjoyable pairing to watch. As for the case, I would’ve liked a bit more of an exploration of why the killer’s victimology changed over time, and more of an exploration of the killer’s psyche. Also it was convenient that they were able to find the evidence of the jewelry belonging to other victims just in time, and I was surprised the judge allowed evidence of the prior murders in, given that the defendant wasn’t charged with those murders, that seemed off - frequently there’s a ruling by a judge that seems off now, this one happened to benefit the prosecution though. And I thought Price trying to criticize Riley’s judgment was a distraction from the actual case, he should’ve just focused on the strong evidence against Bruce for Celeste’s murder, instead of playing the defense’s game and making it about Riley. Like I said, it felt down just so we could know more about Vince’s backstory. Price is rubbing me the wrong way for some reason right now. I wish we could see a medical examiner again at some point, and go back to the openings of ordinary people stumbling on to crime scenes. Jack’s scenes were strong as usual, he’ll be sorely missed when he’s gone. Like always the investigation part was better than the legal part, I wish they would figure out how to write the legal stuff better. Decent episode but definitely some flaws. 7 Link to comment
shapeshifter February 5 Author Share February 5 2 minutes ago, ML89 said: Riley must be Super Cop if he slugged a superior officer while drunk and is still a first grade detective? … I don't have any idea what is going on at L&O these days. None. I think the L&O viewers are supposed to supply the missing pieces. 🙃 I had to look up the transcript to find the parts of the puzzle we were given. I'm including longer quotes of the transcript than I would normally, due to our being "On a break" (Ross Geller in Friends). [LIEUTENANT DIXON SIGHS AND TELLS NOLAN THE BACKSTORY OF DETECTIVE RILEY] Look, he had a really rough go. His father was dying. He couldn't bear the thought of putting him in a home, so he worked all kinds of crazy overtime just to pay for the caretakers. And he tried to cope, like we all do. And then one day while all this was going on,* he overheard a huge argument I was having with my captain. And that sexist son of a bitch called me something that he shouldn't. I'm just gonna leave it at that. And, uh... Vince walked in...[SIGHS] And he knocked his ass out. One punch. Yeah. And he'd been drinking. …later in court: [NOLAN TO RILEY, WHO IS ON THE WITNESS STAND] Shortly after interviewing the defendant, you were suspended from the NYPD. [RILEY] That's correct. [NOLAN] For attacking a captain while drunk. [RILEY] Not exactly. Um...I punched him once in the face, and I wasn't drunk. [NOLAN] But you'd been drinking. [RILEY] I had had a few sips of alcohol earlier that day, yeah. [NOLAN] You drink alcohol while you're on the clock working as a police officer? [RILEY] For a short period of time, I did, yes. [NOLAN] And during this short period of time, you interviewed the defendant in connection with Olivia Washington's disappearance? [RILEY] Correct. [NOLAN] Also, during that period of time, your father was ill, and*your wife and kids had moved out of your house? [RILEY] Yes. [NOLAN] That's obviously incredibly stressful. [RILEY] Yes, it was. [NOLAN] So when you interviewed the defendant, you were under incredible stress, you were drinking. [RILEY] I didn't drink that day. [NOLAN] Even though you admit to drinking during the day while on the job? [RILEY] I never said that I drank every day. [NOLAN] I don't know what that means. [RILEY] It means that I didn't drink every day. [NOLAN] OK, but the point here, Detective, is that you drank while at work during this period of time, and you were under extraordinary stress, which means your assessment of the defendant's guilt or innocence is absolutely meaningless. And, regarding: 7 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said: I would’ve liked a bit more of an exploration of why the killer’s victimology changed over time, and more of an exploration of the killer’s psyche. Also it was convenient that they were able to find the evidence of the jewelry belonging to other victims just in time, and I was surprised the judge allowed evidence of the prior murders in, given that the defendant wasn’t charged with those murders, that seemed off - frequently there’s a ruling by a judge that seems off now, this one happened to benefit the prosecution though. We got one throw-away line: [DIXON AND RILEY] Wouldn't have been the first serial killer who changed lanes. I'm fine with throwaway lines. I just wish the writers wouldn't expect us to supply so many of them ourselves. 4 1 Link to comment
ML89 February 5 Share February 5 20 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said: I wish we could see a medical examiner again at some point, and go back to the openings of ordinary people stumbling on to crime scenes. Well, I guess we didn't see anyone stabbed so it's a step up? Why do they keep making the cops chase people? It's getting to be a cliche by this point. The conflict with the suspect was good but then we find out in act 4 that Riley had interviewed the perp earlier? Did that come up and I missed that too? 7 minutes ago, shapeshifter said: I think the L&O viewers are supposed to supply the missing pieces. 🙃 We really are. Thanks for the transcript! 4 Link to comment
Joimiaroxeu February 5 Share February 5 Of course the first guy they took into custody wasn't the perp. 🙄 Seems like the murdered woman's mother knew her daughter was into something iffy. Just like in the previous episode, I don't understand why people going to sex parties would agree to being filmed while they're there. Or why the event management wouldn't delete the surveillance video immediately afterward unless they wanted to have blackmail material. The crime analyst has a kinky side apparently. Murder wasn't enough of a felony for the perp, he had to be robbing his victims too, thus increasing his chances of getting caught. Yeesh. That's Lt. Dixon to you, Ms. Defense Attorney. The defense was able to get a copy of Riley's notes? Did they have to subpoena them because I didn't realize those were public record. The prosecution appeared to have been caught off guard when Riley was confronted with what he had written in the past. Are we to understand that Riley overcame his previous lack of concern about the Black victims and went to their families to get those photos of them wearing the stolen jewelry? (On reddit some think the photos may have been created by AI. The previous episode opened the door for it when Jack wasn't concerned by video evidence which may have been altered by a potential suspect using AI.) 2 Link to comment
Xeliou66 February 5 Share February 5 Just now, Joimiaroxeu said: Of course the first guy they took into custody wasn't the perp. 🙄 Seems like the murdered woman's mother knew her daughter was into something iffy. Just like in the previous episode, I don't understand why people going to sex parties would agree to being filmed while they're there. Or why the event management wouldn't delete the surveillance video immediately afterward unless they wanted to have blackmail material. The crime analyst has a kinky side apparently. Murder wasn't enough of a felony for the perp, he had to be robbing his victims too, thus increasing his chances of getting caught. Yeesh. That's Lt. Dixon to you, Ms. Defense Attorney. The defense was able to get a copy of Riley's notes? Did they have to subpoena them because I didn't realize those were public record. The prosecution appeared to have been caught off guard when Riley was confronted with what he had written in the past. Are we to understand that Riley overcame his previous lack of concern about the Black victims and went to their families to get those photos of them wearing the stolen jewelry? (On reddit some think the photos may have been created by AI. The previous episode opened the door for it when Jack wasn't concerned by video evidence which may have been altered by a potential suspect using AI.) Riley didn’t lack concern for the previous victims, he was just not really on the ball because of his personal situation and then he got suspended. And yeah I think Riley went back to some family members and was able to find old photos of the victims wearing the jewelry, I would like to have known how they didn’t have this evidence before trial, but maybe Riley did a deeper search during the case and was able to find stuff, it’s another hole that’s left up to the viewers to fill in, there were a few in this episode. But I don’t think Riley ever lacked concern for victims, if anything he was just a bit off his game, if he hadn’t been suspended I’m sure he would’ve stayed on the case. 3 1 2 Link to comment
shapeshifter February 5 Author Share February 5 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said: Riley didn’t lack concern for the previous victims, he was just not really on the ball because of his personal situation and then he got suspended. And yeah I think Riley went back to some family members and was able to find old photos of the victims wearing the jewelry, I would like to have known how they didn’t have this evidence before trial, but maybe Riley did a deeper search during the case and was able to find stuff, it’s another hole that’s left up to the viewers to fill in, there were a few in this episode. But I don’t think Riley ever lacked concern for victims, if anything he was just a bit off his game, if he hadn’t been suspended I’m sure he would’ve stayed on the case. Exactly how I saw it. But I can imagine if someone was multitasking or half asleep while watching (as I have been known to do) it would not have been clear. I've been watching old Perry Mason shows, and, wow, you really have to pay attention! Maybe OG Perry Mason is the template the reboot L&O is following?? More likely, with streaming via Peacock or DVR available, they probably figure we can go back and rewatch? And wouldn't that help with ratings? However, regarding: 16 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said: On reddit some think the photos may have been created by AI. Those photos looked way too similarly shot and posed. I don't mind if the show prop folks use AI to create photos, but puh-lease don't make it look like the cops used AI unless that is part of a plot point. Edited February 5 by shapeshifter 4 1 Link to comment
Joimiaroxeu February 5 Share February 5 Quote Those photos looked way too similarly shot and posed. I don't mind if the show prop folks use AI to create photos, but puh-lease don't make it look like the cops used AI unless that is part of a plot point. I think elsewhere some viewers thought the photos were okay (maybe taken from Facebook or LinkedIn), but perhaps the stolen jewelry had been added so the prosecution could directly tie the pieces to victims. Seems to me that could've been done by Photoshop but maybe using AI is more seamless. Either way, one wonders whether Riley has that kind of technical skill. 2 Link to comment
edhopper February 6 Share February 6 I am notva a lawyer, yet I knew you don't just let the testimony of Riley stand without redirect. I could also think of a number of things I could ask Riley without destroying his career. Like, aren't serial killers often cool and do not match the behavior of usual murderers 3 Link to comment
MrWhyt February 6 Share February 6 I find it hard to believe that Camryn Manheim both the L&O character and the actual person wouldn't be the first person to punch out someone who called her a sexist slur. 3 Link to comment
blackwing February 6 Share February 6 I liked that Dixon actually got more to do than her usual two lines in the station while walking in a hallway. She had a conversation with Price in a bar and she was also on the stand. A judge who actually sided with the prosecution on one item... surprising! This show still has an issue with last minute evidence and not enough time to present a proper exposition. These three women have been dead for a few years. Have no photos of them ever been seen before? As soon as Shaw and Riley found the jewelry in the guy's apartment, shouldn't they have immediately looked for photos or evidence? Why were the photos admissible as eleventh hour evidence? Where is the scene of the defence attorney objecting to the photos? What about authenticity? Why not have the father testify, show him the actual necklace and say it was his daughter's? Then corroborate with photos provided by him to the police? Just seems like really lazy writing. I know that L&O has been around forever and that every episode follows the same format (crime, identify suspect, investigate, of course it's not him, oh here's some new info, oh now we have a new suspect, better find out whether it's him, because the 30 minute mark is approaching, yep, 30 minutes, arrest!) and that they aren't going to change. However, if there isn't enough time to squeeze everything in, then I think each case should cover two episodes. First episode is the police investigation. Second is the courtroom. Then it doesn't feel like everything is rushing to a conclusion with conveniently discovered evidence and cutting out scenes we have to make up in our heads. 2 Link to comment
shapeshifter February 6 Author Share February 6 16 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said: I think elsewhere some viewers thought the photos were okay (maybe taken from Facebook or LinkedIn), but perhaps the stolen jewelry had been added so the prosecution could directly tie the pieces to victims. Seems to me that could've been done by Photoshop but maybe using AI is more seamless. Either way, one wonders whether Riley has that kind of technical skill. If OG Perry Mason were practicing now, he would have definitely had those pictures fabricated to get the perp to think he had evidence (but never actually have them admitted at trial) so the perp would spontaneously confess — often in a spontaneous combustion of scenery chewing emoting. Heh. I've been watching old Perry Mason, and the episodes rarely go to trial. Even though it looks like a trial, it's mostly all preliminary hearings, which gives the lawyers a lot more leeway. 1 2 1 Link to comment
Sake614 February 6 Share February 6 I was so happy when they announced the mothership was returning, but TBH I haven’t felt it at all. The detectives are okay and I like the addition of camryn Mannheim. But the DA side is weak. And I miss the interaction between the cops and the DAs. I think I’m watching more out of habit than enjoyment 😫 5 Link to comment
Xeliou66 February 6 Share February 6 4 hours ago, Sake614 said: I was so happy when they announced the mothership was returning, but TBH I haven’t felt it at all. The detectives are okay and I like the addition of camryn Mannheim. But the DA side is weak. And I miss the interaction between the cops and the DAs. I think I’m watching more out of habit than enjoyment 😫 I enjoy the revival but it’s not on the same level as the original 20 years. There was some good interaction between cops and DA’s last season and hopefully there will be more this season, I like that as well. I like the detective part of the show much better than the legal part, both because the characters are better and the writing is better. I’m worried the legal part will go down the drain completely without Jack. The original 20 years are impossible to match, and the show never should’ve been taken off the air in 2010. But I like the revival decent enough, but there’s definitely room for improvement, particularly on the legal side. It’s SVU that I watch out of habit or hate watch instead of watching because I enjoy it now. 3 Link to comment
blackwing February 6 Share February 6 24 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said: I enjoy the revival but it’s not on the same level as the original 20 years. There was some good interaction between cops and DA’s last season and hopefully there will be more this season, I like that as well. I like the detective part of the show much better than the legal part, both because the characters are better and the writing is better. I’m worried the legal part will go down the drain completely without Jack. The original 20 years are impossible to match, and the show never should’ve been taken off the air in 2010. But I like the revival decent enough, but there’s definitely room for improvement, particularly on the legal side. It’s SVU that I watch out of habit or hate watch instead of watching because I enjoy it now. I feel the same way. It's not great, but it's still Law & Order. I know a lot of people don't seem to like Hugh Dancy here. I think he's fine. I think he's serviceable. I think the weak link is the actress who plays Maroun. I find the Maroun character to be annoying but I also think the actress isn't a very good actress. Perhaps the writing isn't very good. But they had the perfect opportunity to give this character some more depth if they had shown her being conflicted in the episode with the Palestine group killing the Jewish professor. They could have shown her confronting her own personal feelings given her background and trying to balance her feelings against the legalities and facts of the case. But instead it was just "I don't want to talk about it". Lazy writing. Maybe they thought this actress couldn't handle it. 5 Link to comment
ML89 February 6 Share February 6 29 minutes ago, blackwing said: Lazy writing. I think that's the biggest problem. I enjoy the detectives but so much is done now with "let's pull up the CCTV footage" - even the British detectives don't use it as much. I've been watching some of the Lupo/Bernard years and they are still knocking on doors, following leads - and they aren't chasing perps every ep. It's getting ridiculous. The legal side, especially compared to Cutter & Rubirosa, is really awful. I don't have any sense of the two of them, there's no drive to the legal part at all. They barely cite cases, it really seems like they are caught flatfooted every week in court. And another thing - where are my cheesy "Law & Order twist" commercials, NBC? 1 Link to comment
wknt3 February 7 Share February 7 2 hours ago, Xeliou66 said: I enjoy the revival but it’s not on the same level as the original 20 years. The original 20 years are impossible to match, I'm not sure I'd fully agree. I think the best episodes of the revival are certainly of a comparable or better level of quality as Season 17... 2 hours ago, blackwing said: Lazy writing. 1 hour ago, ML89 said: I think that's the biggest problem. I enjoy the detectives but so much is done now with "let's pull up the CCTV footage" - even the British detectives don't use it as much. I've been watching some of the Lupo/Bernard years and they are still knocking on doors, following leads - and they aren't chasing perps every ep. It's getting ridiculous. The legal side, especially compared to Cutter & Rubirosa, is really awful. I don't have any sense of the two of them, there's no drive to the legal part at all. They barely cite cases, it really seems like they are caught flatfooted every week in court. I think some of the problems with the writing are really issues with the budget and meddling network execs trying to "modernize" the show and keep the tone more consistent with the spinoffs. The interviews with stereotypical New Yorkers mean hiring many more actors in speaking roles and take time that is now used for commercials. Even some of the legal side is about trying to create cheap drama without any additional speaking roles to some extent. Although more of that is probably about the younger writers who were good at creating drama with tightly plotted dialogue are now being given their own shows on Netflix (until they are cancelled after 9 episodes) and about a feeling that sitting around the DA's office debating the issues is old fashioned and boring on the part of those aforementioned NBC executives and we need to have Drama with big moments that are created by having the lawyers being completely unprepared. Quote And another thing - where are my cheesy "Law & Order twist" commercials, NBC? Those commercials are so 90's/00's like the semi-comedic cold opens finding dead bodies instead of showing us the crimes and grabbing viewer interest with cleverly constructed investigations instead of low budget chase scenes and wannabe Perry Mason moments mid-trial... 3 Link to comment
Chyromaniac February 7 Share February 7 (edited) Look - I watched this right as the forums went down for maintenance, so forgive me if I'm misremembering some of this. However - was the first time we learned that Riley had interviewed the defendant for one of the prior murders really when he was on the stand? Not after they had already been reviewing the cold cases, and presumably his notes? No, "hey man - you talked to this guy, anything you remember about him?" before they went to check his story? They certainly didn't seem to recognize each other during the obligatory foot chase, or the ensuing hostage crisis... Did I just miss any of this, because it seems like a pretty important dramatic point that a writer might want to establish early on in a script... And I had kind of high hopes for this one too - after they initially decided to not bundle all the cases (because they didn't have hard proof on the old ones), I thought, "finally - a sensible strategy. Hopefully this means they'll slam dunk the current case, but have to come back and fight hard for the others - like that time Abbie had to threaten to extradite a killer to Texas to get him to give up the details on his past victims. Maybe here they can use the other recovered jewelry against him." Well we finally got to that point, but not before it turned into yet another episode where the writers' only idea of courtroom drama is to have our slack-jawed DA's being caught off guard by some incoherent ruling, or new evidence/testimony that they arguably should have known about already. Here, Nolan freaks out at the first sign of trouble - and, rather than just relying on his overwhelming physical evidence and trying to disprove the outlandish defense claim (was there any proof at all that the victim had been sexually active that night?) for some reason he decides that the best response is to bring the old cases in, circumstantial evidence and all. Then when, whoops! looks like the defendant was prematurely cleared of one of the murders, the obvious choice is to ruin the reputation of your own police detective - rather than I don't know... reopening the investigations to hopefully find some new evidence? Speaking of which, whattaya know - here's photos of the victims wearing the jewelry found in the defendants home. Wow, cases solved with actual proof - what a concept... Honestly, at this point, I have to assume that the current writers just don't know how to write a courtroom drama, don't have enough airtime to plot coherent legal issues, or they're specifically being asked to pull these cheap gotcha reveals in every script. Whichever case, it's kind of sad - I think L&O fans aren't just here for "ripped from the headlines" issues or personalities - I believe we want cases that make sense, and feel like they're using authentic legal precedents. Edited February 7 by Chyromaniac 3 Link to comment
ML89 February 7 Share February 7 5 hours ago, Chyromaniac said: Look - I watched this right as the forums went down for maintenance, so forgive me if I'm misremembering some of this. However - was the first time we learned that Riley had interviewed the defendant for one of the prior murders really when he was on the stand? Not after they had already been reviewing the cold cases, and presumably his notes? No, "hey man - you talked to this guy, anything you remember about him?" before they went to check his story? They certainly didn't seem to recognize each other during the obligatory foot chase, or the ensuing hostage crisis... Did I just miss any of this, because it seems like a pretty important dramatic point that a writer might want to establish early on in a script... That's the way I remembered it too - suddenly he interviewed the guy, which didn't come up earlier? Huh? It's like someone lost pages of the script on the way to the copier (or had a corrupt file I guess is the modern version). 5 hours ago, Chyromaniac said: Honestly, at this point, I have to assume that the current writers just don't know how to write a courtroom drama, don't have enough airtime to plot coherent legal issues, or they're specifically being asked to pull these cheap gotcha reveals in every script. I am beginning to believe this. I know they are writing under pressure but it's not like they didn't have weeks on strike to, y'know, watch some old L&Os for research. They aren't even writing to the pattern any more. (also I now realize that I forgot Hugh Dancy is Nolan. Donovan was Price, right? I feel like I'm in Buffy "Ben is Glory?" Also it's 2 years and I still don't have these characters names down). Link to comment
storyskip February 7 Share February 7 8 hours ago, ML89 said: (also I now realize that I forgot Hugh Dancy is Nolan. Donovan was Price, right? I feel like I'm in Buffy "Ben is Glory?" Also it's 2 years and I still don't have these characters names down). Hugh Dancy plays Nolan Price Jeffrey Donovan played Frank Cosgrove I'll sit on the unpopular bench and say again I really like Hugh Dancy as an actor. There were a couple of episodes last season where the director seemed to let the actors have a little more freedom to be more natural and those episodes were the best of the reboot IMHO. Dancy is very capable of much more than we see on screen, and I blame the writer's room and the producers for the erratic behavior of the Nolan Price character. The actress who plays Maroun for me has always been the weak link on the DA side. Even when she's been given center spotlight, she keeps delivering a very one note performance. She's just not good and I wish they could have used whatever vehicle they have spooled up to see Jack ride off into the sunset, to take Maroun with him. 2 Link to comment
blackwing February 7 Share February 7 1 hour ago, storyskip said: The actress who plays Maroun for me has always been the weak link on the DA side. Even when she's been given center spotlight, she keeps delivering a very one note performance. She's just not good and I wish they could have used whatever vehicle they have spooled up to see Jack ride off into the sunset, to take Maroun with him. I agree, she's pretty mediocre in everything she does. Even when her character has more to do, the actress comes across as very wooden. Although I am liking the new detective, I just don't understand why it seems like they feel like they have to stick to the formula. Detectives are one white male, one minority male. Lawyers are one white male and one female. I would have replaced Cosgrove with an Asian female detective. Since the Jill Hennessy days in Season 4, the second attorney is always a woman. Why? Why can't a woman be one of the two detectives? I know there was that short lived one that was not good, but still. Mix it up. I would have brought in a female detective at the start of this season and also fired the Maroun actress. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.