Approach The Bench: Law & Order General Discussion Thread

[Xeliou66]

32 minutes ago, tessaray said:

Couples. S13x23. One of my all time favorites.  Ed & Lennie have a really bad day. 🙂

Except that episode is not a good representation of L&O at all - it has basically no legal stuff and is all police investigation, and it has multiple cases, not just one. It’s certainly an entertaining episode, with some great one liners, but I wouldn’t recommend it as someone’s first taste of L&O.

[tessaray]

33 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Except that episode is not a good representation of L&O at all - it has basically no legal stuff and is all police investigation, and it has multiple cases, not just one. It’s certainly an entertaining episode, with some great one liners, but I wouldn’t recommend it as someone’s first taste of L&O.

True but it is representative of the Briscoe and Green partnership and for me, the best L&O rests on that foundation. (YMMV and all that.)  If the investigation isn't interesting, not many people will wait around for part two. 

For those who don't watch Doctor Who, people always recommend Blink as an entry episode but it isn't really representative of the series as a whole because it's Doctor-lite. But it is entertaining.  And accessible to someone who knows they are watching a show with an overwhelming amount of history.  (Which is my roundabout way of saying I would put entertaining over a perfectly balanced episode.)

[Xeliou66]

47 minutes ago, tessaray said:

True but it is representative of the Briscoe and Green partnership and for me, the best L&O rests on that foundation. (YMMV and all that.)  If the investigation isn't interesting, not many people will wait around for part two. 

For those who don't watch Doctor Who, people always recommend Blink as an entry episode but it isn't really representative of the series as a whole because it's Doctor-lite. But it is entertaining.  And accessible to someone who knows they are watching a show with an overwhelming amount of history.  (Which is my roundabout way of saying I would put entertaining over a perfectly balanced episode.)

Fair enough - I love the Briscoe/Green partnership as well, it’s my favorite detective partnership, but I just wouldn’t choose that episode to show to someone who had never watched L&O just because it’s not at all indicative of the type of show L&O is, like I say it deviates from the usual formula big time. 

[Door County Cherry]

On 11/20/2021 at 12:44 PM, balmz said:

what single episode would you show someone who never watched or even heard of the show that you think would guarantee they would be interested or an episode that would most likely make them not want to watch more episodes 

 

On 11/20/2021 at 2:53 PM, tessaray said:

Couples. S13x23. One of my all time favorites.  Ed & Lennie have a really bad day. 🙂

 

On 11/20/2021 at 3:27 PM, Xeliou66 said:

Except that episode is not a good representation of L&O at all - it has basically no legal stuff and is all police investigation, and it has multiple cases, not just one. It’s certainly an entertaining episode, with some great one liners, but I wouldn’t recommend it as someone’s first taste of L&O.

This is why this is a difficult question to answer because what appeals to people about Law & Order will vary from individual to individual.

If I knew the person I was talking to was really into detective shows/partnerships, then I might recommend one that focuses a lot on them.

If I knew the person really dug legal shows, I'd choose an episode that had some great courtroom scenes.  

If I knew people liked a "shocking twist" I'd chose one of those episodes. 

If I knew the person was more inclined to like mystery series that covered multiple episodes, I'd recommend the three parter in LA. 

Or if I knew the person was a fan of some famous star, I might recommend an episode they starred in before they were big. 

Even if the episode isn't "typical" of L&O, sometimes it just takes that one episode that draws someone in. And once they're in, they're open to everything else the series provides. 

Personally, I like episodes with compelling cases that end with a twist.  I think I expressed my fond rediscovery of many of Season 7 episodes with some surprise endings.  I could see myself recommending Double Blind, Legacy or Menace.  I also love Humiliation from Season 6. 

[ifionlyknew]

Season 9 EP 23 and 24. The two parter Refuge about the Russian mob. I've said before it is my absolute favorite episodes.  It had great police work and great courtroom scenes.  

Also Season 10 EP 16, Trade This.  The one about the stock broker who committed fraud.  There were some great twist and turns.  It had Vincent Curatola (Johnny Sacks from the Sopranos) who I always loved to see in anything.

[balmz]

hmm that was too tricky  and weird of a question wasn't it, also the original question was from about a drama show that wasn't a crime one which was much simpler to answer 

 

here's one, people always complain about characters like serena, nora, nina, fonata  and curtis but here's a hopefully better question

 

how would you rewrite or improve the characters you dislike, and don't say you would kill them off or remove them completely, that's too cliche 

 

one idea i had for nora based off other comments, the teenage wasteland episode could be considered the loss of innocence for nora, i.e. when she realizes she needs to be tougher and less soft as someone in her position and she becomes more active and less passive

 

if you wanted for a bit of irony, maybe one episode she proceeds to get too tough and mccoy and whoever need to convince her to reel it back a bit, like be tough but don't over do it, similarly to the one episode with a fight club and the people there being charged with terrorism before cutter persuaded mccoy to reel it back a bit

[GHScorpiosRule]

GAAAAAAH!!!!!

Maybe we should create a thread about the STOOPIDITY of the networks that air this show!

”Mick” (slur for Irish) apparently is so egregious, it’s akin to the same as the N-word, that it’s bleeped out on all networks (except TNT). But “K***” is A-Okay?😒😒

[shapeshifter]

On 11/20/2021 at 1:44 PM, balmz said:

here's a interesting question i saw on reddit once
what single episode would you show someone who never watched or even heard of the show that you think would guarantee they would be interested or an episode that would most likely make them not want to watch more episodes 

Back to this question. I now have an answer for the first part.
5.5 "White Rabbit" just re-aired on Sundance TV (I have temporary access and am not familiar with the station, but they're running a L&O marathon right now).

I think the attitudes of those involved are all very nuanced, which gives the episode broad appeal.
Plus, it doesn't deal with a lot of gore that might turn off some viewers.

I love hearing this line in 2021--or any time after 2001 (the episode aired in 1994, lawandorder.fandom.com/wiki/White_Rabbit):

• Jack McCoy: "She'll be in jail till 2003. I think the '60s should be over by then."

I'm never certain of when something is ironic, but this👆 line might be, hearing it now.

Here's an extended synopsis to refresh memories ( https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=ed&p=126&item=T:35218):

Quote

...In this episode, Detectives Logan and Briscoe investigate the robbery at a safety deposit box building, in which a security guard was beaten. The security guard, who has a history of drinking problems, tells the detectives about the people who robbed the place and also beat him. At the crime scene, Briscoe finds a broken liquor bottle and assumes the security guard had something to do with the break-in. Briscoe's theory is proved right when the security guard confesses his cousin masterminded the whole thing. When the stolen goods are found, the two detectives are surprised to come upon a bag filled with money and a revolver. Moreover, the safety deposit box in which the bag was stored was rented in 1971 by a man who died in 1969, which confuses the detectives. Clues lead the detectives to robbery committed in 1971 by anti-Vietnam War protesters in which a police officer was shot with the same type of gun found in the bag. Further evidence leads the detectives to William Goodwin, a professor at the City College of New York, who admits that although he had nothing to do with the 1971 robbery, he had been sending money periodically to some people who were involved. The only problem is, he doesn't know where they are or if they are living under assumed names. Logan and Briscoe trace some of the money to a mall in New Jersey and then to a house from a license plate number. Briscoe recognizes the mother of the family as Susan Forest, one of the people they are looking for. She has been living under a different name since the 1971 robbery. McCoy and Kincaid then get Susan to admit she was the look-out during the robbery. Their good fortune takes a turn, however, when Susan hires the renowned anti-establishment lawyer William Kunstler to get her off the charges. The work that Kincaid put into obtaining Susan's confession is wasted because Kunstler was Susan's lawyer when the crime happened, which made it illegal for Kincaid to even question Susan without Kunstler present. After McCoy investigates further, Susan finally discloses the truth of what really happened. Commercials deleted.

It was based on real events: wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Ann_Power#Cultural_references 
I think most of the true crime episodes tend to be strong.

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by shapeshifter
Ack! "they're" NOt "their"

[shapeshifter]

On 11/23/2021 at 7:03 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

GAAAAAAH!!!!!

Maybe we should create a thread about the STOOPIDITY of the networks that air this show!

”Mick” (slur for Irish) apparently is so egregious, it’s akin to the same as the N-word, that it’s bleeped out on all networks (except TNT). But “K***” is A-Okay?😒😒

Yes. "Stoopidity" is all it is. I was raised in gentile neighborhoods and didn't know the word "K***" until as a teen my father told me he had been chased down the street in Brooklyn in the 1930s by a gang of boys yelling "K***" at him.

[Xeliou66]

30 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Back to this question. I now have an answer for the first part.
5.5 "White Rabbit" just re-aired on Sundance TV (I have temporary access and am not familiar with the station, but they're running a L&O marathon right now).

I think the attitudes of those involved are all very nuanced, which gives the episode broad appeal.
Plus, it doesn't deal with a lot of gore that might turn off some viewers.

I love hearing this line in 2021--or any time after 2001 (the episode aired in 1994, lawandorder.fandom.com/wiki/White_Rabbit):

• Jack McCoy: "She'll be in jail till 2003. I think the '60s should be over by then."

I'm never certain of when something is ironic, but this👆 line might be, hearing it now.

Here's an extended synopsis to refresh memories ( https://www.paleycenter.org/collection/item/?q=ed&p=126&item=T:35218):

It was based on real events: wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Ann_Power#Cultural_references 
I think most of the true crime episodes tend to be strong.

 

I like White Rabbit a lot because of defense attorney Bill Kunstler playing himself, that was cool to see a famous real life lawyer play himself and square off against McCoy and Kincaid. It is a very good episode, but it’s a bit different from a typical L&O in that the original crime is quickly solved and then you get into the main storyline. 

[shapeshifter]

36 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

but it’s a bit different from a typical L&O in that the original crime is quickly solved and then you get into the main storyline. 

Don't a lot of the L&O shows have the opening bit be a misdirect that inadvertently leads to the "real" crime?
Like: A couple will be going off into the bushes for a tryst, and then they suddenly find a dead body? 
But also longer red herrings in which it turns out the criminal was linked to a bigger fish--which "White Rabbit" is more like.

[Xeliou66]

8 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Don't a lot of the L&O shows have the opening bit be a misdirect that inadvertently leads to the "real" crime?
Like: A couple will be going off into the bushes for a tryst, and then they suddenly find a dead body? 
But also longer red herrings in which it turns out the criminal was linked to a bigger fish--which "White Rabbit" is more like.

What I’m saying is that usually the crime discovered in the opening scene is the main/only crime of the episode. In White Rabbit, the crime discovered in the opening scene was solved within about 10 minutes, but the discovery of the contents of the safe deposit box led them to the case involving the fugitive. So it’s very different from most L&O’s in that regard. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Don't a lot of the L&O shows have the opening bit be a misdirect that inadvertently leads to the "real" crime?
Like: A couple will be going off into the bushes for a tryst, and then they suddenly find a dead body? 
But also longer red herrings in which it turns out the criminal was linked to a bigger fish--which "White Rabbit" is more like.

Maybe the other spin offs, but not this show. Or if you mean episodes, all of them are cold opens and very rarely were the people who discovered the body supposed to be the ones involved with the murder.

[Jaded]

29 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Another good episode from season 5 is “Scoundrel,” although I don’t think it would be as good as “White Rabbit” for convincing someone to binge L&O with you, heh, because the bad guys are so irritating. 
 

I  saw "Scoundrels "on Sundance earlier too. Seeing Michael Zaslow was a nice surprise I wasn't expecting. It made me sad to think about how he died and what could have been if he hadn't though.

[shapeshifter]

2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

I  saw "Scoundrels "on Sundance earlier too. Seeing Michael Zaslow was a nice surprise I wasn't expecting. It made me sad to think about how he died and what could have been if he hadn't though.

He died of ALS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Zaslow
Very sad. 😞

He did excellent acting in "Scoundrels" as a believably successful, amoral, smarmy swindler
--especially when reading about him being a family man off screen.

And there was no hint that he would lose his ability to speak in this episode, just 4 years before his death.
He was in 2 other roles in L&O just a year before his death: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0953651/ 

[Xeliou66]

Season 5 was on again tonight, and I really like this season, all of the characters were great and there were a lot of good cases. One of my favorites, Virtue, was just on, that’s a good and twisted episode and McCoy’s closing argument in that one is one of my all time favorites and this episode has some real good legal maneuvering and investigation. It’s a topic that’s sadly still very relevant as we’ve seen with numerous cases of powerful predators, and it was satisfying to see the councilman go down.

Before that, Precious was on, and that’s one of L&O’s most disturbing cases about the mother killing her children, another good case, an interesting note about that one is it was referenced in the season 19 episode Falling, where McCoy mentions that he tried to get the mother sterilized and tells Cutter he was wrong to do it. That was great continuity.

Season 5 has one of my favorite cast lineups and some very memorable cases. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

So I stayed up late to watch the special features from season three, which covered interviews about the first three years and also the interview with Dick Wolf and Joe Stern about the first season.

Considering the circumstances that had Moriarty quitting, I'm still pleasantly surprised he agreed to be interviewed to talk about the show and Ben Stone. Since this was done during the show's 13th season. Dann Florek mentions how the show spawned two spin offs and was still on the air "13 years later." Moriarty is actually funny and not bitter.

And while Noth and Dzundza butted heads, I somehow forgot that Dzundza mentioned, despite their differences and arguments, he really liked Noth.

And that most of the main cast came from Broadway--like Florek! I knew him from his recurring role as dweeby suitor/husband/ex-hubby of Roxie from L.A. Law.

And Sorvino also contradicted himself. Said he liked the show and was glad he was asked to join, only to let his Hollywood EGO get in the way. And that when Orbach was finally cast, there wasn't tension anymore.

And something I didn't know: that the show lost a LOT of advertisers in the first season because of the episodes they aired and the issues: abortion, racism, etc. But it was the Awesome Brandon Tartikoff who refused to cancel the show. He was the best.

And out of ALL the episodes during its 20-year run, "Life Choice" remains Wolf's favorite. It's a damn good episode. And he states that for the four years he was on the show, Moriarty was the "heart and soul" of it. One of the best actors of his generation, Wolf said; just as Steven Hill was one of the best of his generation.

I think I'll take back some of the mean things I've said about Wolf after rewatching this interview!

But I'magonnasideeye Richard Brooks!🤪 He reallllyyyyy wanted the role of Paul, and he said loved the character and how he felt and worked for the DA's office. And a huge part was due to the chemistry between him and Moriarty. Which is why I wonder why he agreed to return as Pod!Paul! Those returns, especially the first one, was a slap in the face to the Paul I know and love.

I just wish they could have gotten Steven Hill to interview.

Edited December 7, 2021 by GHScorpiosRule

[Xeliou66]

While I’ve said many times how much I hate Aftershock, I really liked that they followed it up with a normal episode, Causa Mortis, at the start of the next season with only subtle references to what happened in Aftershock, that was a good episode, good case and I liked how the focus stayed on the case but there were subtle references to what happened at the end of the last season, and I liked that there was no beef between Jack and Lennie over Kincaid’s death.

Next up was one of my favorite episodes, ID, outstanding episode with good twists and some really funny moments and colorful characters, and the scene where Schiff visits McCoy in jail after he was held in contempt is one of the best and funniest scenes in the show’s history - after Jack quips that Adam should be sure to wear silk when he meets with Marks, the look Schiff gives him is PRICELESS!! And Marks was quite the prick, he was on a complete power trip and thought he could do whatever, I liked seeing him get confronted, and Schiff was really good throughout and he took no pleasure in bringing down his old friend but he did his job. The case was really good, the killer was ice cold, she showed her true colors at the end when she said her sister “didn’t have a life”. ID is one of my favorite episodes, great case and twists and memorable one liners and colorful characters. 

[Arcadiasw]

On 12/7/2021 at 10:42 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

 

But I'magonnasideeye Richard Brooks!🤪 He reallllyyyyy wanted the role of Paul, and he said loved the character and how he felt and worked for the DA's office. And a huge part was due to the chemistry between him and Moriarty. Which is why I wonder why he agreed to return as Pod!Paul! Those returns, especially the first one, was a slap in the face to the Paul I know and love.

 

Maybe for money. 🤔 Acting is still a job and people got bills to pay. 

Funny watching these episodes and knowing some of these characters are out of jail now or are coming up for parole. I watched Causa Mortis and the killer was up for parole this year. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 hours ago, Arcadiasw said:

Maybe for money. 🤔 Acting is still a job and people got bills to pay. 

Well, at least he wasn’t killed off.

[wknt3]

On 12/7/2021 at 10:42 AM, GHScorpiosRule said:

But I'magonnasideeye Richard Brooks!🤪 He reallllyyyyy wanted the role of Paul, and he said loved the character and how he felt and worked for the DA's office. And a huge part was due to the chemistry between him and Moriarty. Which is why I wonder why he agreed to return as Pod!Paul! Those returns, especially the first one, was a slap in the face to the Paul I know and love.

 

On 12/8/2021 at 1:31 PM, Arcadiasw said:

Maybe for money. 🤔 Acting is still a job and people got bills to pay.

Or maybe he just wanted to work with the team again? Also as a professional he probably understood that bringing him back in a recurring role meant taking a new approach to the character, possibly one that worked better in the abstract discussions than on the page - it wouldn't be the only case on the show where they had an idea for characterization that never quite gelled.  There is a level of practicality in show business that most viewers don't always appreciate, but that doesn't mean that it is simply a matter of cashing in.

[Raja]

18 hours ago, wknt3 said:

 

Or maybe he just wanted to work with the team again? Also as a professional he probably understood that bringing him back in a recurring role meant taking a new approach to the character, possibly one that worked better in the abstract discussions than on the page - it wouldn't be the only case on the show where they had an idea for characterization that never quite gelled.  There is a level of practicality in show business that most viewers don't always appreciate, but that doesn't mean that it is simply a matter of cashing in.

You mean Johnnie Cochran! build me a story wasn't enough for the return of Attorney Robinette

[balmz]

with all the gloomy news lately i had a thought to cheer up people or at least have a cheap laugh

if you could hire any living actor to be in the revival, whom would you choose? it can be serious or for a joke

my serious one

for the police, have Susan Kelechi Watson as senior detective, brandon quinn as a junior and for captain  Linlyn Lue

for the da side

avery brooks as DA, 
Constance Marie as the main ada and Troy Gentile as her assistant

 

 

for a joke one, not meant to be serious at all

jacob black from twilight as junior detective, red forman as captain, patchy the pirate as senior detective

napoleon dynamite as ada and Dariela Marzan as his assistant , rebecca pearson as DA

absurd i know but hey, if svu  can screw around and do stupider stuff for a good 7 years then i can make a cheap joke 

[shapeshifter]

Somewhere on one of these threads (I tried and cannot find where) there were posts concerned about whether or not the stations that air L&O reruns would pull the seasons with Noth.

Right now Sundance is running a marathon, including the first season. 
I'm looking at Noth on a very large screen right now. 
Just for purposes of watching season one L&O, I am mentally separating young, 30-something Noth from older, Mr. Big Noth. And, realistically, from what I've read, he probably didn't have opportunities to behave that way when he was younger. Maybe?

[GHScorpiosRule]

48 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Somewhere on one of these threads (I tried and cannot find where) there were posts concerned about whether or not the stations that air L&O reruns would pull the seasons with Noth.

Right now Sundance is running a marathon, including the first season. 
I'm looking at Noth on a very large screen right now. 
Just for purposes of watching season one L&O, I am mentally separating young, 30-something Noth from older, Mr. Big Noth. And, realistically, from what I've read, he probably didn't have opportunities to behave that way when he was younger. Maybe?

It was being discussed in the media thread--I was the one who pointed out that as of that date (last week when the news broke), the first season was still on schedule to air.

I can separate the two; so I have no problem watching them. I'm not one who looks at an actor and his or her performance of a character to try and see if what they did or have been accused of doing in real life can be "seen" in their performances.

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I can separate the two; so I have no problem watching them. I'm not one who looks at an actor and his or her performance of a character to try and see if what they did or have been accused of doing in real life can be "seen" in their performances.

That's what I thought, but, oof. I am seeing stuff.

[TotalDrama]

On 11/20/2021 at 4:27 PM, Xeliou66 said:

Except that episode is not a good representation of L&O at all - it has basically no legal stuff and is all police investigation, and it has multiple cases, not just one. It’s certainly an entertaining episode, with some great one liners, but I wouldn’t recommend it as someone’s first taste of L&O.

Oh, so I assume this episode is like that one in Season 4 where Lennie and Mike had a bunch of cases in one day and one of them involved a man getting his groin cut off by a woman he was apparently trying to sexually assault? I sure have to check this out. Poor Lennie. Imagine how many of these he had during this career.

Edited December 24, 2021 by TotalDrama

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, TotalDrama said:

Oh, so I assume this episode is like that one in Season 4 where Lennie and Mike had a bunch of cases in one day and one of them involved a man getting his groin cut off by a woman he was apparently trying to sexually assault? I sure have to check this out. Poor Lennie. Imagine how many of these he had during this career.

Yep. I found “Couples” that season’s attempt of season four’s “Mayhem”. I liked “Mayhem” more.

[Xeliou66]

4 minutes ago, TotalDrama said:

Oh, so I assume this episode is like that one in Season 4 where Lennie and Mike had a bunch of cases in one day and one of them involved a man getting his groin cut off by a woman he was apparently trying to sexually assault? I sure have to check this out. Poor Lennie. Imagine how many of these he had during this career.

Yes, Mayhem from season 4 and Couples from season 13 were the 2 episodes where they deviated from the formula by having many cases in one day and very few scenes with the prosecutors. Both episodes had some good dark humor in them, although Mayhem ended on a very tragic note with the innocent guy killed in jail. 

[Arcadiasw]

Just saw "Killerz". Imagine in the revival they bring the girl back as a killer again. 

[WendyCR72]

On 12/23/2021 at 9:57 PM, Xeliou66 said:

Yes, Mayhem from season 4 and Couples from season 13 were the 2 episodes where they deviated from the formula by having many cases in one day and very few scenes with the prosecutors. Both episodes had some good dark humor in them, although Mayhem ended on a very tragic note with the innocent guy killed in jail. 

Not to mention the episode so many don't like, "Aftershock", in S6. Definitely deviated from the show's formula.

[Grrarrggh]

Just watched Series 10 episode Untitled where a man claims he acted under extreme emotional disturbance after he murders the woman who sponsored a graphic painting. I couldn't believe that a) how annoying it was that the killer complained about the painting being misogynistic killed a woman instead of the painter, a man. Second, that no one pointed out to him that by doing this and blaming the painting he hates and he made the painting and its painter a thousand times more famous. 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Grrarrggh

[Xeliou66]

25 minutes ago, Grrarrggh said:

Just watched Series 10 episode Untitled where a man claims he acted under extreme emotional disturbance after he murders the woman who sponsored a graphic painting. I couldn't believe that a) how annoying it was that the killer complained about the painting misogynistic killed a woman instead of the painter, a man. Second, that no one pointed out to him that by doing this and blaming the painting he hates and he made the painting and its painter a thousand times more famous. 

That was a disturbing episode. I hated the killer, who supposedly hated stuff that was misogynistic yet he was the one who went and cut off a woman’s hands, he was a real sicko, I was glad that McCoy pointed this fact out in his closing argument. 

[TotalDrama]

On 12/29/2021 at 6:00 PM, Xeliou66 said:

That was a disturbing episode. I hated the killer, who supposedly hated stuff that was misogynistic yet he was the one who went and cut off a woman’s hands, he was a real sicko, I was glad that McCoy pointed this fact out in his closing argument. 

I believe he meant ENTITLED and I saw that episode a few weeks ago. I don't recall it being disturbing, but perhaps I need to have another view of it. I watched it because I caught the SVU episode with the same title that was the first part of the crossover and carrying over story material from the L&O Season 4 episode Mayhem. 

Speaking of Mayhem, I checked out that Season 13 episode that was like a spiritual sequel to that one and boy was that something else. It was like watching a parody episode, many comedic moments. I think it's a step-up from Mayhem. I'm surprised it took them nine years to make another episode like it and then nothing else of the sort really. We should have one in the upcoming revival season. I just hate how the episode ended. It makes you think there will be a Part 2 but the following episode doesn't continue anything from it, which was disappointing. 

Edited January 3, 2022 by TotalDrama

[Xeliou66]

3 minutes ago, TotalDrama said:

I believe he meant ENTITLED and I saw that episode a few weeks ago. I don't recall it being disturbing, but perhaps I need to have another view of it. I watched it because I caught the SVU episode with the same title that was the first part of the crossover and carrying over story material from the L&O Season 4 episode Mayhem. 

Speaking of Mayhem, I checked out that Season 13 episode that was like a spiritual sequel to that one and boy was that something else. It was like watching a parody episode, many comedic moments. I think it's a step-up from Mayhem. I'm surprised it took them nine years to make another episode like it and then nothing else of the sort really. We should have one in the upcoming revival season. I just hate how the episode ended. It makes you think there will be a Part 2 but the following episode doesn't continue anything from it, which was disappointing. 

No episode 20 of season 10 is called Untitled and it is about a man who killed a woman and cut off her hands because the man was angry that the woman was sponsoring an artist who painted a picture of a woman without hands along with other controversial material. It is disturbing, and the crime scene with the woman’s hands chopped off and placed under her coffee table with blood everywhere was one of L&O’s more gory, disturbing crime scenes.

And actually the season 13 episode Couples, the one that’s like Mayhem, does go directly into the next episode, Smoke, where Briscoe and Green arrive at the scene after their long day - it’s where the infant son of the comedian has fallen out of the apartment during the fire, and the investigation shifts to revelations that the comedian was a pedophile and of course it’s revealed the parents of one of his victims let him rape their son in exchange for him giving them money to pay for their other son’s medical treatment. 

[TotalDrama]

32 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

No episode 20 of season 10 is called Untitled and it is about a man who killed a woman and cut off her hands because the man was angry that the woman was sponsoring an artist who painted a picture of a woman without hands along with other controversial material. It is disturbing, and the crime scene with the woman’s hands chopped off and placed under her coffee table with blood everywhere was one of L&O’s more gory, disturbing crime scenes.

And actually the season 13 episode Couples, the one that’s like Mayhem, does go directly into the next episode, Smoke, where Briscoe and Green arrive at the scene after their long day - it’s where the infant son of the comedian has fallen out of the apartment during the fire, and the investigation shifts to revelations that the comedian was a pedophile and of course it’s revealed the parents of one of his victims let him rape their son in exchange for him giving them money to pay for their other son’s medical treatment. 

Okay nice, especially on the Season 13 episode. What a relief. I need to check both of those out then. Thanks for the information. :)

[TotalDrama]

The concept of this show is interesting, but I have a hard time stretching it because no DA in the world goes through 22+ trials a year which equivalates to how many episodes there are per season. With the format being the way it is and running on a full season of episodes, you're STUCK incorporating a trial 95% of the time.

An advantage the spinoffs like SVU and CI have is that they don't dwell too much on the legal stuff and can maintain being just about the police investigations. We can have plenty of THEM a year since crime is happening all the time, not so much trials. The UK version also has a better advantage of this since they only show 6-8 episodes per year which significantly limits the amount of action we're seeing the DA's office do in their year. But it just sucks for that country's audience having to wait so long for a new season with limited episodes like that. So, there's a pro and con to this whole format. Frankly, if the L&O ran on 13 episodes a season (and many shows in the U.S. does this, even now but probably not so much in 1990), I could suspend disbelief on the concept better.

Also, aren't the DA Investigators the ones that are suppose to be doing the fact checking on the defendant once they're in custody? We see the DA's themselves do this. They utilize the DA Investigators on Trial By Jury and I always thought that was weird because on L&O, we don't see this. I hate when spinoffs generally do what the original show doesn't when it comes to the legal stuff because it just feels disjointed. HOWEVER, the usage of the investigators on TBJ has a disadvantage when it comes to originality because we basically rehash the L&O format where half the episode is investigation and the actual trial doesn't happen until the second half. The only difference is, the DA's office is behind the investigation which allows the DA characters to be involved more since the investigators are reporting to them and not a regular police captain. But with a show's title and an opening narration that ends with "This is one of those trials", you'd think the episodes would all start off at a trial and that's how it should have been done. That's the impression you get getting into the first episode with the opening scene, only it's a bummer when you find out it's only a briefing and then it's half an episode before you actually get to the trial. I'd like to see that show revived as well but structured differently where the trial covers the entire episode. 

Also got around to watching that Season 10 "Untitled" episode. I'm still baffled they had another episode with a similar name to a previous one ("Entitled"). I didn't find it so disturbing, but I liked it. I'm off to watch the Season 13 finale "Smoke" and see how that plays out. EDIT: I've already seen this episode! And it's not really a continuation of the cases presented in the previous episode despite "Smoke" picking up on the same day and the episodes initially airing back-to-back. But this is an episode that DID need a two-parter because the whole storyline with the comedian, Monte, was dropped when the case shifted to the parents he paid off to molest their son and they became the episode's focal criminals. Monte's arc was never even resolved which I thought was a bust. -_-

Edited January 3, 2022 by TotalDrama

[Katy M]

On 12/26/2021 at 3:39 AM, Arcadiasw said:

Just saw "Killerz". Imagine in the revival they bring the girl back as a killer again. 

I love that episode and always wished we got a follow-up.  That mother was horrible.  Everybody else was trying to do what was best by putting her daughter in a mental hospital instead of possibly prison for life and all she could say was, "no.  She's my best friend."  No, she's not.  She's your daughter, and she's deeply disturbed.  and that chilly look the girl gave the boy at the end of the episode, she probably killed again by the end of the week.

[shapeshifter]

On 12/26/2021 at 3:39 AM, Arcadiasw said:

Just saw "Killerz". Imagine in the revival they bring the girl back as a killer again. 

28 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I love that episode and always wished we got a follow-up.  That mother was horrible.  Everybody else was trying to do what was best by putting her daughter in a mental hospital instead of possibly prison for life and all she could say was, "no.  She's my best friend."  No, she's not.  She's your daughter, and she's deeply disturbed.  and that chilly look the girl gave the boy at the end of the episode, she probably killed again by the end of the week.

If the upcoming L&O reboot did revisit "Killerz," I'd love to have the ADA interview Abbie in the present time and have Abbie say "[After] that chilly look the girl gave the boy at the end of the [trial], [it's no surprise she] killed again by the end of the week." 

 

[Cristofle]

On 1/3/2022 at 12:50 PM, Katy M said:

I love that episode and always wished we got a follow-up.  That mother was horrible.  Everybody else was trying to do what was best by putting her daughter in a mental hospital instead of possibly prison for life and all she could say was, "no.  She's my best friend."  No, she's not.  She's your daughter, and she's deeply disturbed.  and that chilly look the girl gave the boy at the end of the episode, she probably killed again by the end of the week.

Agreed. That girl was a stone cold psychopath. I've always wished for a follow-up because clearly, she has harmed people again. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Oh now I have seen everything! Ridiculous that is. Bad enough with the idiotic bleeping of words except when the episodes deal with Nazis-in which case none of the words are bleeped. But now scenes where people are in their underwear-MEN! And cardboard cutouts of women-are BLURRED! Oh the HORROR!😱😱😱😱😱😱 But women in bras -not blurred out is A-OKAY.🤬🤬🤬🤬

And on the WE network, whose shows are trashy as FUCK.

Edited January 4, 2022 by GHScorpiosRule

[TotalDrama]

9 hours ago, Cristofle said:

Agreed. That girl was a stone cold psychopath. I've always wished for a follow-up because clearly, she has harmed people again. 

I don't mind a follow-up and we can tweet this to Rick Eid, but I don't want to see her as a killer again. NO. I want to see her rehabilitated. Let's not follow the typical cliche route with these child killers where years later we see them still up to their tricks. I was upset when SVU did that bringing back Henry Mesner because that was an opportunity to show him changing and being framed for the current murders and the episode ends with him questioning if he can truly change from his killer ways which still tugs at him a bit but luckily didn't do any killings since he was a young boy. I'd like to see this angle played with this girl and perhaps she can work at a place trying to help other children like her. 

[Katy M]

4 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

I don't mind a follow-up and we can tweet this to Rick Eid, but I don't want to see her as a killer again. NO. I want to see her rehabilitated. Let's not follow the typical cliche route with these child killers where years later we see them still up to their tricks. I was upset when SVU did that bringing back Henry Mesner because that was an opportunity to show him changing and being framed for the current murders and the episode ends with him questioning if he can truly change from his killer ways which still tugs at him a bit but luckily didn't do any killings since he was a young boy. I'd like to see this angle played with this girl and perhaps she can work at a place trying to help other children like her. 

That would have been a better episode for a reformed kid because he was being sent for help at the end of this episode.  The kid in Killerz was being set up to fail on all fronts.

[Cristofle]

6 hours ago, TotalDrama said:

I don't mind a follow-up and we can tweet this to Rick Eid, but I don't want to see her as a killer again. NO. I want to see her rehabilitated. Let's not follow the typical cliche route with these child killers where years later we see them still up to their tricks. I was upset when SVU did that bringing back Henry Mesner because that was an opportunity to show him changing and being framed for the current murders and the episode ends with him questioning if he can truly change from his killer ways which still tugs at him a bit but luckily didn't do any killings since he was a young boy. I'd like to see this angle played with this girl and perhaps she can work at a place trying to help other children like her. 

I think there could potentially be an opportunity for some of the child killers on Law and Order to be shown redeemed, even if the crime was brutal. The boy from S4's Born Bad didn't strike me as completely conscience-free, especially toward the end of the episode. I could believe the boy from Trust in S2 could be rehabilitated, even though he killed two of his friends in separate events - honestly, prison seemed like the better option for him versus being anywhere near his father. But Jenny from Killerz and Henry from SVU are the two I would not believe could be rehabilitated. No, you can't diagnose a child as a psychopath (well, these days, it's more can't diagnose them with anti-social personality disorder). But it doesn't mean children who have such a profound lack of any kind of conscience can be reformed - if it's as severe a case as Jenny or Henry were shown to be, it's highly unlikely. I certainly could not see Jenny helping children, not for any reason. 

ETA: also this. 

Quote

That would have been a better episode for a reformed kid because he was being sent for help at the end of this episode.  The kid in Killerz was being set up to fail on all fronts.

I don't think Henry in particular was likely to reform, and I had no issue with them showing him as a grown-up psychopath because at the end of the day, that was still the most likely path for him. But even he might have been better than Jenny - she had no consequences for her actions. I don't see either of them going on to be wonderful, caring people - it's more could their behavior have been refocused in some way. Not all psychopaths are violent. In these cases, the children had learned they enjoyed violence, so that's a tougher hill to climb, but perhaps not an impossible one. Jenny, however, had no reason to reform at all. A child that severely disturbed, who could kill with absolutely no remorse, isn't just going to get better on her own. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Cristofle

[Xeliou66]

I saw Chosen today - Dworkin’s first appearance, where the killer was stealing money from his business to send money to Israel, and I love this episode, some really entertaining courtroom scenes with McCoy and Dworkin battling it out and Dworkin was hilarious as usual. Serena irritated me though when she basically accused Jack of being an anti Semite, nothing Jack said was remotely anti Semitic and Serena was being a crybaby as usual, her whining gets so tiresome. There were bigots in this episode - the defendant and his wife. I thought Jack asking the wife if she would’ve felt differently about the murder if the victim was Jewish was a smart question, it exposed the wife’s bigotry and hypocrisy. 

I loved Jack’s anger at that biased joke of a judge and him storming out and refusing to apologize when the judge let the defendant go on saying stuff about anti Semitic violence that had nothing to do with the case. And Jack’s closing argument was great as usual. Great, very entertaining episode, Dworkin is always entertaining. 

[TotalDrama]

On 1/5/2022 at 7:52 AM, Cristofle said:

I think there could potentially be an opportunity for some of the child killers on Law and Order to be shown redeemed, even if the crime was brutal. The boy from S4's Born Bad didn't strike me as completely conscience-free, especially toward the end of the episode. I could believe the boy from Trust in S2 could be rehabilitated, even though he killed two of his friends in separate events - honestly, prison seemed like the better option for him versus being anywhere near his father. But Jenny from Killerz and Henry from SVU are the two I would not believe could be rehabilitated. No, you can't diagnose a child as a psychopath (well, these days, it's more can't diagnose them with anti-social personality disorder). But it doesn't mean children who have such a profound lack of any kind of conscience can be reformed - if it's as severe a case as Jenny or Henry were shown to be, it's highly unlikely. I certainly could not see Jenny helping children, not for any reason. 

ETA: also this. 

I don't think Henry in particular was likely to reform, and I had no issue with them showing him as a grown-up psychopath because at the end of the day, that was still the most likely path for him. But even he might have been better than Jenny - she had no consequences for her actions. I don't see either of them going on to be wonderful, caring people - it's more could their behavior have been refocused in some way. Not all psychopaths are violent. In these cases, the children had learned they enjoyed violence, so that's a tougher hill to climb, but perhaps not an impossible one. Jenny, however, had no reason to reform at all. A child that severely disturbed, who could kill with absolutely no remorse, isn't just going to get better on her own. 

Jenny and Henry's stories I'd like to see a redemption because people are too quick to believe "Oh yes, that girl is gonna be bad" or "Oh yes, that boy is gonna be bad" because of how they come off as young kids. Seeing them reformed THIS MANY YEARS LATER I MIGHT ADD can surely throw you in for a loop like "Oh, maybe there is hope for people like them". You said the key words, "MOST LIKELY PATH" not the "ONLY PATH" so Henry or Jenny can be in the small percentage where there's change. Even if you don't buy they could, as I suggested, have there be an episode where they aren't the killers this time around but the URGE of doing so still isn't completely wiped from them and they have to struggle with that. But I just don't want to see them come back and they're back killing which would be too obvious and predictable. 

[balmz]

anyone know what episode this is, was browsing tv tropes

In one episode of Law & Order, the detectives and district attorney are trying to solve a murder that appears to have been done by a hitman who was hired by either the dead man's Gold Digger wife or her lover. Then they learn that the dead man borrowed a lot of money from an old friend, which makes them think he might be the guilty party. It turns out that the dead man himself hired the hitman. He was dying of cancer, but he wanted to frame both the wife and the lover as retaliation for the affair. He only left a video confession to be played in the event that the officers tried to arrest his friend.

[wknt3]

6 hours ago, balmz said:

anyone know what episode this is, was browsing tv tropes

In one episode of Law & Order, the detectives and district attorney are trying to solve a murder that appears to have been done by a hitman who was hired by either the dead man's Gold Digger wife or her lover. Then they learn that the dead man borrowed a lot of money from an old friend, which makes them think he might be the guilty party. It turns out that the dead man himself hired the hitman. He was dying of cancer, but he wanted to frame both the wife and the lover as retaliation for the affair. He only left a video confession to be played in the event that the officers tried to arrest his friend.

That would be Season 13's "Hitman" ripped from the headlines (Google Ted Ammon) with a twist.

[balmz]

thanks

[Arcadiasw]

Is there a Season 17 thread? I watched "Home Sweet" and I couldn't stop giggling at Jack's acting when they set up the ex husband in the DA's office. 🤣