FBI - General Discussion

[Dowel Jones]

OK, let's have an office pool on what the name should be.  If Nina uses her own name (Chase), the kid should be called Foot.  If Scola's name is used, it should be Cocoa.

[GiandujaPie]

Glad Scola didn't sign the document. My husband said he wouldn't have signed either. I do think it was a test from Nina to see how committed Scola was. She didn't seem super upset when he wouldn't sign and she was happy to share that she was having a boy and invited him to dinner. They were dating when she got pregnant, even if it was very casual, but they had a relationship. I hope that now that they are no longer working together that maybe they will attempt a real relationship. 

Case of the week was boring. The father was a real jerk and I recognized the actor from Modern Family. I couldn't believe he didn't have a problem with putting his son in danger and allowing the kid to see him get gunned down. I hope the kid turns out ok. Maybe Scola can mentor him or something. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by GiandujaPie
ETA that Nina was having a boy.

[jhfield4]

I was really impressed with John Boyd in this episode.  Scola is so buttoned up, but he balanced trying to be stoic with real emotion when talking to Nina about the baby.  I like the character more and more as the series goes on. Bravo!,

[Grrarrggh]

Ugh. It's as if abortion doesn't exist in the television world. 

[shapeshifter]

16 minutes ago, Grrarrggh said:

Ugh. It's as if abortion doesn't exist in the television world. 

I interpreted the conversation in the earlier episode to mean that Nina was considering abortion and that Scola would support her in that choice too. 

And now that I've reminded myself of my interpretation of their earlier conversation, I'm wondering if Nina mainly offered the contract to let him off the hook because it seemed he was in favor of an abortion.

[Grrarrggh]

5 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I interpreted the conversation in the earlier episode to mean that Nina was considering abortion and that Scola would support her in that choice too. 

And now that I've reminded myself of my interpretation of their earlier conversation, I'm wondering if Nina mainly offered the contract to let him off the hook because it seemed he was in favor of an abortion.

No woman on these programmes is EVER in favour of an abortion. Abortion doesn't exist on television or films, except as a concept to be dismissed. 

[LadyChaos]

10 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

No woman on these programmes is EVER in favour of an abortion. Abortion doesn't exist on television or films, except as a concept to be dismissed. 

It happens.....just not very often. My personal opinion is that the show runners don't see a point in introducing a pregnancy storyline if their not gonna carry it to term....otherwise if its brought up, and then the person gets an abortion...its like 'What was the point?' Is that how it happens in the real world, no but its TV....kinda like in another show I used to watch a character got paralyzed, but miraculously a friend invented a chip to make their legs work within a few episodes....why bother doing it at all? 

Not to mention, clearly a lot of the world is still divided on abortion...and they have to be aware that....It could stop them from even being allowed to air an episode in certain countries, and even in the US...could turn a lot of people to suddenly hate a character.

Edited December 16, 2022 by LadyChaos
grammar

[Netfoot]

On 12/13/2022 at 11:27 PM, shapeshifter said:

Anyone else wonder if Nina was hoping Scola wouldn’t sign? That she was either just offering him a way out if he wanted it, or that she wanted him to have to decide to commit to being involved if he was going to be at all?

I think if the writers went there, they would have telegraphed what Nina was doing, just to hammer their own cleverness home.

On 12/14/2022 at 12:12 AM, LadyChaos said:

I would start wondering what the showrunners have against men being good. fathers...

I have corrected your post.

[Grrarrggh]

7 hours ago, LadyChaos said:

It happens.....just not very often. My personal opinion is that the show runners don't see a point in introducing a pregnancy storyline if their not gonna carry it to term....otherwise if its brought up, and then the person gets an abortion...its like 'What was the point?' Is that how it happens in the real world, no but its TV....kinda like in another show I used to watch a character got paralyzed, but miraculously a friend invented a chip to make their legs work within a few episodes....why bother doing it at all? 

Not to mention, clearly a lot of the world is still divided on abortion...and they have to be aware that....It could stop them from even being allowed to air an episode in certain countries, and even in the US...could turn a lot of people to suddenly hate a character.

Name one time it's happened? Truly, name one. As for the point? It's real. Characters can deal with it. It's a cop out and bad writing when the viewer knows that every time a woman gets pregnant she'll either have it and ruin her life or 'dramatically' miscarry. As for Arrow, the storyline they shouldn't have bothered with was Oliver lying to Felicity when half of Star City already knew about the kid.... Second, the world isn't divided. According to polls more than half the country is fine with abortion. 

[LadyChaos]

Just now, Grrarrggh said:

Name one time it's happened? Truly, name one. As for the point? It's real. Characters can deal with it. It's a cop out and bad writing when the viewer knows that every time a woman gets pregnant she'll either have it and ruin her life or 'dramatically' miscarry. As for Arrow, the storyline they shouldn't have bothered with was Oliver lying to Felicity when half of Star City already knew about the kid.... Second, the world isn't divided. According to polls more than half the country is fine with abortion. 

I can name 2 off the top of my head. The original Melrose Place and Dirty Dancing....

The world and the USA are the same thing. In many countries, abortion is still illegal.

[shapeshifter]

19 minutes ago, Grrarrggh said:

Name one time it's happened? Truly, name one.

Did you mean on FBI? 
I don't know for sure about this show, but there was this recent (rebooted) Law & Order episode:
https://www.tvfanatic.com/2022/09/law-and-order-season-22-episode-2-review-battle-lines/
It's available on Peacock if you'd like to see it.

Edited December 16, 2022 by shapeshifter

[LadyChaos]

There was also the one doctor on Grey's Anatomy that got two abortions...

[WendyCR72]

Hell, even soaps have had characters get abortions. Erica Kane on All My Children (even if it was reversed decades later; don't ask!) and - just recently - a character on Days of Our Lives had one.

Maybe the writers just want Scola to have a family. And, as mentioned, like it or not, the country is divided, and programs tend to want to try to please everyone to keep eyeballs on screen, so it is what it is.

[LadyChaos]

11 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Hell, even soaps have had characters get abortions. Erica Kane on All My Children (even if it was reversed decades later; don't ask!) and - just recently - a character on Days of Our Lives had one.

Maybe the writers just want Scola to have a family. And, as mentioned, like it or not, the country is divided, and programs tend to want to try to please everyone to keep eyeballs on screen, so it is what it is.

Not to mention the amount of countries that might ban the episode. 

[WendyCR72]

25 minutes ago, LadyChaos said:

Not to mention the amount of countries that might ban the episode. 

Not just other countries. Affiliates in any given section of the US could preempt if they choose to. It's happened before. Some affiliates balk at content and show something else if they disapprove.

[jabRI]

20 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

I'm wondering if Nina mainly offered the contract to let him off the hook because it seemed he was in favor of an abortion.

That wasn't my read, I think he was trying to be supportive of whatever her decision was going to be.  He realized he couldn't impose, but he could be supportive.

[LadyChaos]

50 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Not just other countries. Affiliates in any given section of the US could preempt if they choose to. It's happened before. Some affiliates balk at content and show something else if they disapprove.

And if people think things like this don't happen.....earlier this year Russia refused to allow the sale of the Wedding Stories game pack for Sims 4, for as long as EA featured a same sex couple on the front....it was a big thing, EA wasn't going to change it, but agreed to at the last minute to comply with Russia's demand.

Anime is changed all the time to make it 'more palatable' to whatever Country their trying to market to.....At the end of the day, a company will always follow whatever direction will make them the most money.

[Grrarrggh]

5 hours ago, LadyChaos said:

There was also the one doctor on Grey's Anatomy that got two abortions...

Yes, and that was, sadly, revolutionary. It's pathetic to me that other programmes haven't followed suit. Gay marriage or even relationships are illegal in other countries but mainstream television has no problems with them. It's time for abortion to come out of the closet. 

[CheshireCat]

8 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

As for the point? It's real. Characters can deal with it.

I think in order for such a story to work, it needs to be a series regular and the show needs to be willing to dedicate the time and story needed to it. They also need to be willing to revisit it. Often times, that's not the case for procedurals. Look at how they handled OA being a victim. It was all done in one episode and I doubt we'll hear from it again. And I'll be surprised if we hear about OA's protectiveness of Magge again. I suspect that's dealt with as well.

Although, they are letting go of an opportunity since Scola could have been the one having difficulties with the abortion and he could have been conflicted between wanting to support Nina's choice and not wanting it at the same time. It could also translate to future relationships, as in make him more cautious, choose a woman who wants children etc. But again, the show would have to be willing to go the extra mile and keep this in mind as they write future episodes but since it's a procedural...

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, CheshireCat said:

But again, the show would have to be willing to go the extra mile and keep this in mind as they write future episodes but since it's a procedural...

Yeah, but I have seen the Law & Order franchise refer to past events and even have later episodes refer to earlier events, and since Dick Wolf was the head honcho there, as well, it is curious as to why the FBI franchise seems more contained.

Or maybe the writers will surprise us down the line...

[shapeshifter]

Feel free to throw tomatoes, but I watch shows like this for the Sherlockian drama rather than the social or medical issues. I don't even care for the chase-and-tackle scenes. 
Actually, I only started watching for Jeremy Sisto, and he's a pretty minor character most of the time, and when he more major, it seems to be more about his family than Jubal solving a mystery to save the world.
Hmmm. Maybe I need to rethink watching this?

[CheshireCat]

23 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Yeah, but I have seen the Law & Order franchise refer to past events and even have later episodes refer to earlier events, and since Dick Wolf was the head honcho there, as well, it is curious as to why the FBI franchise seems more contained.

Or maybe the writers will surprise us down the line...

Are they still doing it though? I know they had Lewis recur on L&O SVU and Organized Crime is more serialized but other than that, are there mentioning of past events?

Did the Chicago shows ever really do it? It feels like PD completely erased Lindsay, for example and recreated it with Upton.

To me, it feels like it's the exception rather than the rule (although, I think, at least in part that's due to the fact that actors can leave at any time and they don't want to rely on building a story if the actor leaves. On the other hand, if they built a coherent story around the character, the actor might have more incentive to stay because they may get invested in telling the story. 🤷‍♀️)

[WendyCR72]

22 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Are they still doing it though? I know they had Lewis recur on L&O SVU and Organized Crime is more serialized but other than that, are there mentioning of past events?

Did the Chicago shows ever really do it? It feels like PD completely erased Lindsay, for example and recreated it with Upton.

To me, it feels like it's the exception rather than the rule (although, I think, at least in part that's due to the fact that actors can leave at any time and they don't want to rely on building a story if the actor leaves. On the other hand, if they built a coherent story around the character, the actor might have more incentive to stay because they may get invested in telling the story. 🤷‍♀️)

Can't answer as far as the Chicago franchise goes. Don't watch that. I stick/stuck with mainly the Law & Order Mothership series and Criminal Intent, at least in terms of the entire shows. SVU, I watched regularly until Stabler left. Now it's more along the lines of if nothing else is on and I remember it's on. Shrug.

But the Mothership did do an episode in S15 which was a follow up all the way back to Season 1, and Criminal Intent had some ongoing plots and/or characters that would return, etc.

I do agree that going more in depth would maybe give an actor some incentive to stay. But I get the other angle, not wanting to invest in case Character X leaves. A TV Catch 22.

Still, if the L&O franchise could do callbacks, I have no idea why other Wolf shows are so reluctant to do the same.

[shapeshifter]

13 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

Still, if the L&O franchise could do callbacks, I have no idea why other Wolf shows are so reluctant to do the same.

My guess is that as the number of all available shows of this type has increased to a seemingly infinite number, the percent of the current audience who are able to recall a plot point from a previous season has dwindled to a tiny number.

Writers can still do callbacks to plots from previous seasons, but they can’t assume the viewers watched or recall those episodes, so significant screen time must be allowed to “remind” viewers of those events with clips and expositionary dialogue that describes those past events, which can easily become tedious.

Also, for a network show like FBI, the length of each episode is about 42 minutes for an hour show, while cable shows can extend that time as needed. So I imagine network shows of today are even less likely to do callback episodes.

Edited December 18, 2022 by shapeshifter

[Lady Jane]

On 12/16/2022 at 2:25 PM, Grrarrggh said:

Name one time it's happened? Truly, name one. 

Olivia Pope had an abortion on Scandal. She wasn't conflicted about it, she didn't hesitate, and she was shown to be satisfied with her choice. I grant you there are few examples.

The writers may in general be squeamish about depicting the reality of women's lives, but that just contributes to the stigma around abortion. What's crazy is they are perpetuating the stigma rather than normalizing it--as you say, the American public is decidedly pro-choice. I assume this will follow the same trajectory as being inclusive of LGBTQ+ relationships on TV. It was a HUGE deal at first, and now there is much better representation. I assume they'll start treating abortion as healthcare rather than some kind of moral issue at some point.

I also took Scola's "I'll support whatever choice you make" was a reference to abortion, as it usually is. They didn't say it out loud, but at least presented it as a choice.

[Grrarrggh]

5 hours ago, Lady Jane said:

Olivia Pope had an abortion on Scandal. She wasn't conflicted about it, she didn't hesitate, and she was shown to be satisfied with her choice. I grant you there are few examples.

The writers may in general be squeamish about depicting the reality of women's lives, but that just contributes to the stigma around abortion. What's crazy is they are perpetuating the stigma rather than normalizing it--as you say, the American public is decidedly pro-choice. I assume this will follow the same trajectory as being inclusive of LGBTQ+ relationships on TV. It was a HUGE deal at first, and now there is much better representation. I assume they'll start treating abortion as healthcare rather than some kind of moral issue at some point.

I also took Scola's "I'll support whatever choice you make" was a reference to abortion, as it usually is. They didn't say it out loud, but at least presented it as a choice.

I agree with most of what you eloquently said, but "whatever choice you make" is a fake whiff. 

[WendyCR72]

The show returns on January 3, 2023, S05.E10: Second Life:

Quote

The abduction of a young woman leads the team back to a cold case from 18 years ago, which pushes Isobel to reconnect with her old partner Jake and take another shot at solving one of her first cases at the bureau.

 

[LadyChaos]

Jubal was a drunk who was sleeping with his younger partner.....and screwed up a case because of it.

When Isabel was younger, she was sleeping with her older partner who was a drunk and screwed up a case.....

 

[WendyCR72]

6 minutes ago, LadyChaos said:

Jubal was a drunk who was sleeping with his younger partner.....and screwed up a case because of it.

When Isabel was younger, she was sleeping with her older partner who was a drunk and screwed up a case.....

 

Well, at least both the men and the women are equally culpable as fuckups! So, it's something, I guess?

And next week is another trope. But tropes are the heartbeat of procedurals, so I'll wait before I judge it by the preview!

[l star]

I loved Isobel in this one. Her empathy with the mother was really touching, especially in comparison to her partner’s. I’m guessing Jake came before her strong sense of self? He forgot several times that not only wasn’t she his junior, she was in charge now. Yet she managed to be both in charge and ‘haunted’ without kicking the other agents out of their roles. Her no at the end was great. The hell no was implied. She didn’t even seem to like him by the end. 

[Xeliou66]

This was a great episode - best of the season so far - it was a really strong case with a lot of good twists - I really liked how they put all of the pieces together. Everyone had a nice sized role, there was no personal drama, hell there wasn’t even an unnecessary foot chase with a red herring suspect that has become so common on the show. Just a strong case with good detective work to figure everything out.  
Interesting case about the girl being abducted and then abducted again by the creep after running away from him.  
Good use of all characters, including Jubal and his room of agents. Isobel was really good in this, I liked her scene of where she got through to the mother, and her turning down her ex partner/boyfriend at the end, I was certain her ex partner would cause trouble but I liked that it was more low key rather than him being openly corrupt he just did a shoddy job.   
I don’t know how everyone else felt but this was strong IMO, I liked that it was all about the case and solving it with no personal soapy shit that has dragged the show down this season. 

[Dowel Jones]

I was starting to wonder if everyone was out of shape after the long layoff and they didn't want to write in a foot chase.

Maybe I missed something but JW the kidnapper seemed to have some really good tracking skills to find Annabelle after she got away and was living anonymously.  Seems like she might have made an effort to track herself through one of those DNA sites if she had any suspicion about her situation.  I realize that the abduction occurred when she was four, but somehow she realized something was wrong along the line and ran.

Did anyone ever clean up the motel room?

[illdoc]

I was wondering why Isobel kept calling "Annabelle" while searching the house for her. It's been 18 years since she was abducted---I doubt she was called "Annabelle" during that time, so she probably didn't even remember that she was Annabelle. Isobel should have been calling "Tasha" or even "Chloe" (the name she'd been using for the last month).

[Snazzy Daisy]

S05•E10 - Second Life

What was JW’s motive when he kidnapped Annabelle for the first time? He was young and he just wanted a child? Did he sexually abuse her? 😣

[mythoughtis]

16 hours ago, SnazzyDaisy said:

S05•E10 - Second Life

What was JW’s motive when he kidnapped Annabelle for the first time? He was young and he just wanted a child? Did he sexually abuse her? 😣

He wanted a family as he was a recent high school graduate who had lost his parents and was an only child.  Still wrong on all levels 

I wish we’d have gotten an ending scene of a press conference where the FBI exonerated the man who spent 18 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.  

Back to Scola and Nina.  I did not get the impression he wanted her to have  abortion at all - but he did  recognize the decision was hers.  I fall in the camp of wanting Scola to have a happy life and a family.  
I also don’t see the need for this show to be leading  the charge to showcase abortion.  It’s a good FBI procedural - it doesn’t have to be anything else. In fact I get tired of the episodes that try to showcase social controversies. 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by mythoughtis

[Netfoot]

5 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

I wish we’d have gotten an ending scene of a press conference where the FBI exonerated the man who spent 18 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.

Come on, now! I realize this is fiction, but they have to retain some semblance of reality! 

More likely the guy would get a letter saying: "Since you were in fact innocent all along, you had no right to be there. So please find enclosed a bill for 18 years room & board..."

[WendyCR72]

The description for the next episode is up, S05.E11: Heroes, airing January 10, 2023:

Quote

The team jumps into action when JOC analyst Kelly Moran is taken hostage.

 

[Andyourlittledog2]

21 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

The team jumps into action when JOC analyst Kelly Moran is taken hostage.

Another damsel in distresss.  Why can't one of the guys get taken hostage and need help?  It's always the women...

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

Another damsel in distresss.  Why can't one of the guys get taken hostage and need help?  It's always the women...

Yeah, I know. Are we sure it's 2023 and not 1923?

[shapeshifter]

1 minute ago, WendyCR72 said:

Yeah, I know. Are we sure it's 2023 and not 1923?

1973 was really peak TV for damsels in distress.

[mythoughtis]

11 minutes ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

Another damsel in distresss.  Why can't one of the guys get taken hostage and need help?  It's always the women...

Kelly is one of the male analysts.  

[Andyourlittledog2]

34 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

46 minutes ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

Another damsel in distresss.  Why can't one of the guys get taken hostage and need help?  It's always the women...

Kelly is one of the male analysts.  

There really should be an exclamation point emoji.  I stand corrected!!!!!!! 🤭

[WendyCR72]

7 minutes ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

There really should be an exclamation point emoji.  I stand corrected!!!!!!! 🤭

Another one here pleasantly shocked!

[mythoughtis]

55 minutes ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

There really should be an exclamation point emoji.  I stand corrected!!!!!!! 🤭

This should be interesting. This character has had no backstory at all.  All I think I know  about him is that he often stands and leans over his keyboard to type.  

[Xeliou66]

This was another good episode - intense and attention grabbing from start to finish. It was nice to see Kelly get a day in the spotlight, and the episode was heavy on Jubal which I liked. It was very interesting to see how they were going to get out of the hostage situation. I did wonder how come the villains didn’t notice that Kelly had a phone earlier though. Solid case and backstory. The show seems to be finding its rhythm now after being off some and overly soapy at the beginning of the season - I’m glad there was no mention of Nina and her pregnancy. Overall I liked this one - it was nice seeing everyone chip in and assist. 

[shapeshifter]

48 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I did wonder how come the villains didn’t notice that Kelly had a phone earlier though.

Heh, not only were they not professional villains, they had no potential for successful villainy. It's amazing neither was shot or worse.

[Dowel Jones]

So who gets the $250 million that Daddy stole?

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

So who gets the $250 million that Daddy stole?

I was wondering if this was written after the recent crypto meltdown, and if we were supposed to be thinking it was not worth much, just enough so the aunt getting custody would have a few hundred thousand dollars to provide for the daughter’s therapy, and maybe the parents’ legal fees, but not so much to get criminally greedy over.

[meira.hand]

7 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I did wonder how come the villains didn’t notice that Kelly had a phone earlier though.

After they searched him the camera panned to the potted plant behind him and his phone was hidden between the leaves. Only later he retrieved it to send messages.

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

7 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I did wonder how come the villains didn’t notice that Kelly had a phone earlier though.

Heh, not only were they not professional villains, they had no potential for successful villainy. It's amazing neither was shot or worse.

See my response above.

[illdoc]

The "kidnappers" were terrible! In the old days, they would have had to park the getaway van near a pay phone, so that they could be called by the son with the crypto key. But these days, with burner phones, why didn't the van keep driving around until the call came through. That's how they got caught---they parked the van! Furthermore, isn't the usual MO one kidnapper stays with the victim "somewhere" while the other gets the info?