S23.E09: Family Ties

[shapeshifter]

12 minutes ago, FozzyBear said:

I’m struggling to articulate something that’s been bugging me since the reboot started. Even though I know logically the episodes are the same length they always were, they seem so much shorter. It’s like nothing really happens but it takes up the whole exposed. In old L&O there would have been an investigation, some comedy business with Lenny, an interrogation scene, new information to change the investigation, an arrest, a scene with Skoda, a legal debate in Adam’s office, a tense cross examination, Jack having a temper tantrum about something, more investigation, a surprise twist at the end of the case, and then a little stinger in the elevator to wrap everything up. Now it just seems like there’s no twist, no development, nothing actually happening. What are they doing to fill the time? Just me?

Chase scenes suck up a lot of time, whether foot or car chases.
I haven't noticed on this show, but most shows of this type now fill time with people staring at a screen that reveals information.

[dubbel zout]

I think the running time of the reboot is a bit shorter than it was.

[dttruman]

15 hours ago, FozzyBear said:

I’m struggling to articulate something that’s been bugging me since the reboot started. Even though I know logically the episodes are the same length they always were, they seem so much shorter. It’s like nothing really happens but it takes up the whole episode. In old L&O there would have been an investigation, some comedy business with Lenny, an interrogation scene, new information to change the investigation, an arrest, a scene with Skoda, a legal debate in Adam’s office, a tense cross examination, Jack having a temper tantrum about something, more investigation, a surprise twist at the end of the case, and then a little stinger in the elevator to wrap everything up. Now it just seems like there’s no twist, no development, nothing actually happening. What are they doing to fill the time? Just me?

No, it's not you. It seem like there are maybe less scenes that are shot on  locations with less extras. I didn't use a stop-watch or anything, but it seems like there is more time set aside for commercials, than what they had started with back in 1999.

[Zaffy]

If I were from Ukraine I would be really pissed off with all these stupid series using my people's tragedy for their stupid scripts.
And I will use the word "stupid" again, cause it describes this episode perfectly.
I have no clue about American/New York laws, but most of what happens in the reboot's courts makes no sense, they just want to generate brainless drama. 
Actually it seems its  more about style than any kind of substance. 
Style, like the annoying lawyer with the buggy eyes, the "villain". Style like having the judges take stupid decisions in favor of the defense just to make DA's work more difficult. Logic is not there. Just idiotic moral dilemmas (lol).
Is it really possible for the defense to ask a 5 years plea when all the evidence is against her client? And on top of that to use an infant as a bargaining chip? Does it make any logic? 
And PTSD ? I thought this whole thing was an insult to PTSD victims. 

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
 

[dttruman]

6 hours ago, Zaffy said:

If I were from Ukraine I would be really pissed off with all these stupid series using my people's tragedy for their stupid scripts.
And I will use the word "stupid" again, cause it describes this episode perfectly.
I have no clue about American/New York laws, but most of what happens in the reboot's courts makes no sense, they just want to generate brainless drama. 
Actually it seems its  more about style than any kind of substance. 
Style, like the annoying lawyer with the buggy eyes, the "villain". Style like having the judges take stupid decisions in favor of the defense just to make DA's work more difficult. Logic is not there. Just idiotic moral dilemmas (lol).
Is it really possible for the defense to ask a 5 years plea when all the evidence is against her client? And on top of that to use an infant as a bargaining chip? Does it make any logic? 
And PTSD ? I thought this whole thing was an insult to PTSD victims. 

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
 

I have to agree, but this is only a subjective and personal view on my part, so please don't take this as an insult to the Ukrainian people. The actions of the girl by killing the mother and severely injuring the father, trying  to sell the baby to another couple for a lot more money, claiming she has PTSD,  demanding 5 years instead of the offer of 15 years, and getting her demands if she gives up all rights to the baby. All these things tell me she is dishonest,greedy, conniving, and murderous. Yet she looks like a scared immigrant easily manipulated. A lot of mixed messages  and I hope I didn't offend anyone.

[shapeshifter]

23 hours ago, Zaffy said:

If I were from Ukraine I would be really pissed off with all these stupid series using my people's tragedy for their stupid scripts.
And I will use the word "stupid" again, cause it describes this episode perfectly.… … And PTSD ? I thought this whole thing was an insult to PTSD victims. 
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
 

16 hours ago, dttruman said:

I have to agree, but this is only a subjective and personal view on my part, so please don't take this as an insult to the Ukrainian people. The actions of the girl by killing the mother and severely injuring the father, trying  to sell the baby to another couple for a lot more money, claiming she has PTSD,…

16 hours ago, dttruman said:

…demanding 5 years instead of the offer of 15 years…if she gives up all rights to the baby. All these things tell me she is dishonest,greedy, conniving, and murderous. Yet she looks like a scared immigrant easily manipulated. A lot of mixed messages  and I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Yes, @dttruman, definitely "a lot of mixed messages," hence @Zaffy's anger at the script.

It was not the surrogate's idea to “sell the baby to another couple for a lot more money”:

• [DARINA'S LAWYER EXPLAINING WHY DARINA WAS LEAVING THE PORTER'S] Pavlo Golub lied to Darina. He told her the Porters were having second thoughts, that they weren't even sure they wanted to raise the child anymore. He said he found a loving couple, and Darina trusted him.
  …
• [AFTER THE DETECTIVES FIND AN ACCOUNT OPENED IN DARINA'S NAME WITH $2K, THEY TRACE THE CHECK TO THE OTHER FAMILY] And how much did you pay Pavlo?
• [OTHER COUPLE] $250,000.

So Evil Broker Pavlo Golub found a couple willing to pay $250,000 and (I guess???) didn't have another surrogate handy. He initially told the detectives he charged $50K for the surrogacy and gave the surrogates $10K, but if the audience carefully hears every line, it becomes obvious that only $2K goes to the surrogate.

As for Darina just “claiming she has PTSD,” that's the prosecution's lines, and in this show, the prosecutors are the good guys, but we are also told:

• Her husband was decapitated right in front of her. Her infant son was killed by a mortar.

We never did learn how Evil Broker Pavlo Golub enticed the surrogates in Ukraine. My guess is he told them there were jobs for them as nannies for the babies they carried. But there were "a lot of mixed messages" and plot holes in the script regarding his whole operation.

Regarding "demanding 5 years instead of 15," that was the lawyer's idea:

• [DA] We are prepared to offer Man One, 15 years
• [DEFENSE LAWYER] We're willing to accept five years and help with immigration.
• [DA] Darina isn't a citizen, which means after she serves her sentence, she's likely to be deported back to Ukraine.
• [DARINA] Please, I can't go back there. I can't agree to five years.

"I can't agree to 5 years" means in this context that no agreement that would end in deportation is acceptable
— not 5 or 15, because she is terrified of returning to Ukraine.  
In other L&O moments like this, it was made obvious with some dialog with the defense attorney that they were going to take their chances in court and why. 

But the real issue is that the writers decided a war refugee who was a civilian and who was very pregnant would overpower 2 adults with a hammer, killing one. Really, writers??? Why would you do that? I read a lot of news and that is not something ripped from any headlines I've come across.

BTW, @Zaffy, “Stupid” is my go-to descriptor when I am really mad too. 
And I find the number of times I repeat "Stupid" is proportional to the calming effect it has.😉

Edited April 18 by shapeshifter

[Zaffy]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

It was not the surrogate's idea to “sell the baby to another couple for a lot more money”:

Maybe not her idea, but she went on with the plan as soon after she brutally killed a person and almost killed another.  If you have any empathy you do not blackmail the person you have just killed his wife and basically try to get away with it with 5 years in jail. 

Maybe we take this too seriously, cause the whole thing was the result of a very sloppy attempt by the writers to put us in a moral dilemma. 
They are more busy with trying to make us decide which side to take than write a decent story in a decent court with decent attorneys.
 

Edited April 18 by Zaffy

[dttruman]

11 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

It was not the surrogate's idea to “sell the baby to another couple for a lot more money”:

• [DARINA'S LAWYER EXPLAINING WHY DARINA WAS LEAVING THE PORTER'S] Pavlo Golub lied to Darina. He told her the Porters were having second thoughts, that they weren't even sure they wanted to raise the child anymore. He said he found a loving couple, and Darina trusted him.
  …
• [AFTER THE DETECTIVES FIND AN ACCOUNT OPENED IN DARINA'S NAME WITH $2K, THEY TRACE THE CHECK TO THE OTHER FAMILY] And how much did you pay Pavlo?
• [OTHER COUPLE] $250,000.

So Evil Broker Pavlo Golub found a couple willing to pay $250,000 and (I guess???) didn't have another surrogate handy. He initially told the detectives he charged $50K for the surrogacy and gave the surrogates $10K, but if the audience carefully hears every line, it becomes obvious that only $2K goes to the surrogate.

I guess I missed or misunderstood a few of the moments from "Family Ties", so I am just glad I threw out there a preemptive apology. So let that be a lesson to all those that watch Law & Order, go to the bathroom before the show starts.

[wknt3]

On 4/16/2024 at 2:53 PM, FozzyBear said:

I’m struggling to articulate something that’s been bugging me since the reboot started. Even though I know logically the episodes are the same length they always were, they seem so much shorter. It’s like nothing really happens but it takes up the whole episode. In old L&O there would have been an investigation, some comedy business with Lenny, an interrogation scene, new information to change the investigation, an arrest, a scene with Skoda, a legal debate in Adam’s office, a tense cross examination, Jack having a temper tantrum about something, more investigation, a surprise twist at the end of the case, and then a little stinger in the elevator to wrap everything up. Now it just seems like there’s no twist, no development, nothing actually happening. What are they doing to fill the time? Just me?

 

On 4/16/2024 at 3:13 PM, dubbel zout said:

I think the running time of the reboot is a bit shorter than it was.

 

On 4/17/2024 at 6:03 AM, dttruman said:

No, it's not you. It seem like there are maybe less scenes that are shot on  locations with less extras. I didn't use a stop-watch or anything, but it seems like there is more time set aside for commercials, than what they had started with back in 1999.

I believe there are a few different things going on here. The first is that newer episodes are shorter. If you look at Peacock the early episodes of SVU  are listed at 43/44 minutes while the last few seasons are 41/42 minutes. It doesn't seem like much, but it does have an impact. The second is that budget cuts mean that there are fewer characters and less fieldwork. What used to be done with interviews on location is now done showing surveillance camera footage in the squadroom. While this saves money - fewer speaking roles and location shoots, it also changes the feel of the episode and how much is happening, especially since combined with 2 minutes less story time we often have less of the initial stages of the investigation where the detectives are looking at multiple suspects and ruling them out. Finally there is something I have heard a few writers and showrunners talking about on various podcasts - network executive interference and the vogue for "second screen" storytelling. This is an assumption that viewers are also looking at their laptops, tablets, or smartphones while watching so shows need to repeat important story points and avoid important plot points being shown instead of told. So that means even if we had the 2 minutes back they wouldn't be as dense - because it is more expensive and because the suits feel like that kind of storytelling doesn't suit today's viewer. After all it's not like there is any evidence that the old style works perfectly well with modern viewers who are watching as background while doing other things as well as more attentive viewers. I mean to prove that you would need decades of leading viewership numbers on all sorts of networks and platforms and how could you ever get that?

Edited April 21 by wknt3

[shapeshifter]

Great points,☝︎ @wknt3! 

Regarding:

19 hours ago, wknt3 said:

…This is an assumption that viewers are also looking at their laptops, tablets, or smartphones while watching so shows need to repeat important story points and avoid important plot points being shown instead of told.…

I think there's *some* truth in this, but it's not being executed very well.

I watch a lot of old shows that I didn't see in their first runs and notice that the earliest shows seem influenced by the old radio dramas in that they do literally tell the story (like Perry Mason). But as TV production came into its own, and as screen resolution improved, car chases, action scenes with fights, and scenes without dialog due to stealth or romance became the norm.

Now, as a viewer who is guilty of multitasking while a show is on, being able to hear  lines describing the plot are helpful.
*However*, if it's a show I really like, I'm not going to multitask other than during commercials.

Still, having writers give the characters lines that recap or repeat important plot points is a good idea, if it's done well, and and especially if the plot is complex (like this episode).
However, it seems like they're rushing through the story recapping lines as a necessary evil rather than as a storytelling tool, expecting good ol' shapeshifter et al. to repost the lines here (4 posts above👆) if the viewers didn't catch them, and, even then, they tend to be as clear as mud.💩

Edited April 21 by shapeshifter