These are the bastard 16 hour days, in theory over tomorrow. So, some visual candy.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Coming in for a Landing
These are the bastard 16 hour days, in theory over tomorrow. So, some visual candy.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
LEVERAGE #207 "The Two Live Crew Job" Question Post
Go ahead, you seem excited. I, personally, credit Wil Wheaton's electric sexuality.
Ask away in the Comments.
Monday, August 24, 2009
LEVERAGE #205 "The Three Days of the Hunter Job" Post-game
This is being banged out between shots, on set, so pardon if it seems a little jerky.
#205 -- one pf my favorites of this season, perosnally -- was an experiment to some degree. Any showruner will tell you 2nd season's the bear. The one where you go from trying to make 13 perfect little movies to making at least 60 of the bastards. That means playing with the various elements of the show. The metaphor I always use is that you're driving down the highway, and you need to be able to change lanes -- character, plot, tone, template, etc -- as many ways as possible to keep from getting stale. Sometimes, you're gonna bang off the guardrail, granted, but it's a necessary process.
So this was an attempt to figure out what we could steal or retrieve for a client that was a bit more ... ephemeral than the standard bag 'o cash. That married up nicely with our desire to take on one of the cable bullies.
The center of the episode is almost thrown away in, well, the center of the episode, when Monica Hunter explains what her job is: "I sell fear." This is one of those things about Pundit Parasites I find particularly offensive (really, John? We had no idea.). I mean, the crime rate in New York is the lowest it's been in 42 years -- it's almost as safe to ride the subway now as it was back when Mad Men was happening, yet nice middle-Americans still treat urban centers as hellholes. Your kid is literally as likely to be struck by lightning as abducted and killed, and yet we're lojacking our kids. We have nice, ill-informed old people with trembling lips begging their Congressmen not to vote for "death panels." All because selling fear, making sure people believe something unspeakable is about to happen at any time is cheap, easy and big business.
There's a general rule we have on the show, in that the villain should be brought down by some version of his original sin. Hunter's sin was selling fear, and that's the fate she earned.
The classic film structure for paranoia is, of course, Three Days of the Condor. Toss that in the bag, add a military base the nice Army Reserve folk loaned us, mix it up, and Bob's your uncle. (For what it's worth, the whole "journalists are lazy"/using the same sources run was mine -- so feel free to address your angry emails in my direction.)
Beth Broderick, as only the second female villain we've had, was amazing. Funny, willing to do anything, and she really got the type of human we were parodying. By which I mean a completely random type of human, not one person. In a litigation sense.
All right, let's dive in to the mailbag. As always, all opinions are mine, this is not an official TNT site, etc., etc.:
@JohnSeavey: How's the show doing on DVD? Happy good numbers? How important are happy good DVD numbers to the continued run of a series on TV?
We won't have DVD numbers for a while, as we have a distribution deal through, I think, MGM. For a lot of shows it makes a difference as -- and this is new -- the studio that owns the network is leveraging shitty ad sales from a low-rated show against the DVD sales of a show with said tiny but passionate audience. (DVD sales are flattening out, however, so that's going to change. ) It's also a matter of building a library for future resale. TV shows accumulate material quickly, rapidly increasing the value of a studio's library.
All that said, we're in a different situation as we're independently produced so the math is skewed.
@ChrisAyers: Many times at the end of a con, the team gives the client a check, presumably for whatever amount he/she/they have coming to them. I've often wondered how the clients explain this sudden windfall to the bank and or the IRS when they go to deposit it...not to mention the kid getting a full fledged business in the ultimate fighting episode. Seems like that much unexplained money showing up could raise several thousand red flags.
Madoff ran a fifty billion dollar Ponzi scheme. For ten years.
All joking aside, Hardison's primary (if visually uninteresting) skill set is moving money around and working within the confines of the modern financial system. He's got the clients covered in complicated lease-to-own agreements.
@Jodih: Last season in the Miracle Job Eliot made mention of a nephew... Are we ever going to hear about him again or find out some other tidbit about Eliot's family?
They live in the shadows as immortals, so it's tricky ... Every time you introduce a family member, you're closing another story avenue. I'm leery of it. In this particular show, we like to keep the characters' backstories as blank-slate-y as possible.
@Bryan-Mitchell: Will there ever be an episode where the issue isn't so black and white? Where maybe it isn't as obvious that the bad guy is "bad" or that maybe the team members are split on if the issue warrants their involvement?
Eh. We'll probably do that at some point (one could argue the Hurley story was one), but as I've mentioned before, we're a pulp show. People tune in to watch banter and evil-smiting. We're pretty happy living in that world.
@catchester: I think the isues of good and evil and the team being split have already been dealt with a lot, considering there has only been 17 episodes. Like in the nigerian job, where the good guy client turned into the bad guy. Or the 12 step job where the bad guy was just mixed up and had good intentions. Or the wedding and beantown bailout jobs that Nate didnt want anything to do with. Then there's the stork job where Eliot thinks kidnapping a child isnt what they do and Parker later goes against the team decision and tries to rescue all the children. Or the fairy godparent job where Sophie and Eliot both object to using a child in their con. Most of Leverage seems to be a gray area to me. Thats one of the things i like about it.
Or ... that. (I honestly answer these questions one at a time, without reading them first, so there you go)
@Anonymous: What PR genius decided to advertise Nancy Grace's new book during this episode of Leverage? This is either idiocy or evil genius.
To be fair, they buy that ad time months in advance. And besides, our show had nothing to do with Nancy Grace. No-thing.
@Samantha: 1. Where do all the characters live in relation to one another? It would be weirdly hilarious/codependent if they all lived in the same building. 2. Parker's bizarre--sexual tension, I guess? with ladies is A+++, but will there ever be a payoff? Or is it just a throwaway gag? 3. Will there be a gag reel on the s2 dvds? My need for outtakes burns with all the blue-white intensity of an O-class star.
1.) Boston's not that big. Although we never establish it, in my head: Hardison got a place near Nate, Eliot got himself a place out on the water, probably Quincy, out on Hough's Neck (rides his motorcycle in to avoid the traffic) Sophie's in one of the new downtown condos, and Parker ... Parker's living arrangements are kind of special.
2.) I think she just has a weird energy with everybody. Although you're not the first person to have mentioned that.
3.) Geesh, wish we were rolling on that take where we opened the door on Beth and Geri and they were making out. I could have knocked off questions #2 and #3 in one go.
@Nicole: My question is this: Is Sophie's leadership suffering this time around because of Nate's control issues (jumping in on her, where while he was drunk he'd be more laid back) and because of her break up? Don't Hardison and Eliot compliment her leadership abilities in Second David Job (which was after the building blown up, to be fair...). I'm just a little confused about how that character arc is tracking...
Running a crew's a bear, and Nate poking her doesn't help. Also, this is her first time running a con where she's not stealing anything. Much trickier. But yeah, with one or two more under her belt, Sophie could run the crew. Although in a high stakes situation that'll be on in the winter, it's actually somebody else who steps into the big chair ...
@adc1966: And was Beth Broderick really climbing that fence herself in a skirt and heels? What a trouper.
Yep. She took the hit from the cop, too.
@cliff: Golf claps for "Project Destiny", good sir.
Hey, you have something from an old movie that's also a decent stripper name? You use it.
@Antisocial Butterfly: Quick Question: What is Area 52? Or at least what do you imagine it to be? Also I love that Eliot knows the truth about the government conspiracies. I'd expect that of Hardison, but it makes sense now that Eliot would know it too.
Area 52 is where they're building the cyborg from Global Frequency -- which would have been episode 13 of the first season, btw. And of course Eliot knows about this stuff. Let's just say that Hardison's phone is not the only one Eliot carries with him at all times. (I may have to hit Warren up to make that canon ...)
@Ashley: Question. Was the scene with Eliot wearing the apron and snapping on the plastic gloves taken from ShowTimes "Dexter," or was it just a coincidence?
It was just meant to be as creepy as possible. Not intentionally Dexter-y, but I don't think you can avoid the comparisons, honestly.
@Gordon: Question time: Monica Hunter was obviously quite substantively based on the Queen Bottom Feeder, Nancy Grace. Given HN and TNT are part of the same corporate "family," how did this help, hassle or hinder your creating the character?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, I think there are a fair number of cable humans who could reasonably pass for Monica Hunter. For a bunch of corporate overlords in suits, TNT are pretty cool about letting us nail whatever corporate overlord in a suit catches out passing fancy.
@heartspeed: Is Parker really that gullible? I wasn't sure if she was just joking around with them in her strange off beat way or she really was totally going for it all Area 52 and The Council lol. / @Kes: Does Elliot actually believe the moon landing was faked or is he just playing with Parker's head?
Parker's knowledge of anything non-thief related is sketchy (much like Sherlock Holmes). I think the answer is whatever you find most entertaining.
@Anonymous: So Parker is "killed" right outside the studio and then gets up and walks away while everyone watches? And this miraculous recovery never gets back to Hunter? Hmmm....
Ah-HA, my friend. No one else at the station met Beth, Hunter leaves that location directly, talks to the Nate, is then only back in the studio for five minutes before she freaks out, and the rest of the episode rolls out without interruption. No time for pipe, Doctor Jones!
@SapphireSmoke: How is it that all of the characters can act as well as they do? Most people have difficulties acting, especially under stressful situations. And even Parker, who at one point couldn't act to save her life... for being so socially inept and always bluntly honest, she seems to have progressed so far with lying/acting in such a short time. Granted, she's still not the best, but I just find it a little unrealistic that all of them can do it as well as they do.
Each one can act in very specific contexts. You can not let Hardison do the long con (as will be made painfully clear in Ep #208), as much as he wants to. Parker's okay as long as the character is meant to be off-putting, and she has Sophie in her ear. Eliot, ironically, is the second best grifter after Sophie. But, again, in very specific circumstances.
@sjrSpike: General question -- Nate is Nate, Eliot is Eliot, Sophie is Sophie, Parker is Parker -- so why is Alec Hardison? They all call each other by first name, except Hardison.
There's something about "Hardisonnnnn" through gritted teeth that makes it funnier. Honestly, just by sound. I also have a habit of calling people by their last names, so some of that probably blended in.
@VideoBeagle: Something that ocured to me.. the pilot made "we're funding this with an alternate revenue stream" was gonna be a reoccurring phrase...yet it didn't. Does the team still play the market to make the money to keep them funded and keep the toys coming in?
Yes, and they take a small percentage for operating expenses.
@Coren: But I want [the song from "Twelve Step"] now! How might I go about this? Also, are there more? If so, gimme!
I'd love to do a soundtrack, actually. We'll look into it.
@NancyH: (1) Was the reference to Area 51 & Area 52 an intentional play on the containers in "Homecoming?" (2) Is there a good site to see what the viewer numbers per episode are?
1.) No. 2.) You know, I don't know. If you follow the #leverage Twitter tag, somebody usually throws up a link.
@McDevite: my boyfriend and I, both of whom work in politics, wanted to know how much of the latter half of the Hunter story was influenced by Glen Beck?
Even Monica Hunter isn't as crazy as Glenn Beck.
@Anonymous: if Nate worked art fraud for IYS, how did he end up chasing Hardison? Did Nate work computer fraud or did Alec steal some art?
Nate ran across Hardison as the financial mastermind in a couple complicated insurance scams, more as a back-end facilitator.
@Alexandra: the cons seem to be moving further away from "stealing stuff" and closer to mind control (Order-23 and this one, though the Tap-Out Job had hints of it as well). While I love this direction, I'm wondering if this season will bring us just a straight up stealing-lots-of-money-from-somebody episode?.
That was, as mentioned above, intentional. A big part of the show's moral satisfaction comes from the villain's suffering, not just losing an "amount." And hey, 60 episodes, at some point in the low 30's you stole everything interesting you're gonna steal.
That said, we steal a lot of stuff over the course of this 15 episodes. Money, diamonds and a Russian artifact all coming up in the back 6.
@Bates: How much of your casting process is the standard casting director/auditions/etc. versus approaching a particular actor? (Or, for that matter, even creating a role from the get-go with someone specific in mind?)
Pretty much all of it is through casting directors, although we have a combo burrito with Lana Veenker in Portland and April Webster and Scott David in LA. Occasionally we have actors in mind, but usually we submit the breakdowns or scripts and let the casting directors do their jobs. We've brought very, very few actors in from other cities -- generally one an episode -- so almost everything goes through straight casting.
The only role I can think of that was written for a specific actor was Sterling. We did the full-on casting dance, but we intended for Mark Sheppard to play that role and fate decided to reward us.
@Calos b. (and others): Why was Nate wearing a black-and-white urban camo uniform (which isn't worn by the Army) when all the other soldiers were actually wearing the correct uniforms? Was this meant to add to the "black ops" conspiracy theme, or was this just the only uniform you could find in Portland?
We found plenty of real uniforms in Portland -- as a matter of fact, all the soldiers at the Army base are Reservists wearing their own uniforms. Portland has yet to disappoint on any aspect of the film-making process.
No, our problem was a purely production-oriented one: we didn't want to buzz Nate's hair and live with the look for, oh, say, five damn episodes. As a result, we really couldn't put him in a standard general's uniform. We almost spiked the character until, nicely enough, our former Army/spook dude consultant let us know that the Special Ops guys back from Afghanistan often sport long hair and beards when they return from working abroad, and don't cut it between assignments. We matched that with the black and white urban camo -- which checked out with our guys, but hey, YMMW -- and went with that look. It seemed to mesh nicely with the conspiracy tone of the episode. So, it was as close as we could get -- which, I will remind everyone, I've stated will never, ever be quite right.
@619: I personally HATE fanfic so I was wondering..... 1)How do YOU feel about fan fiction? 2)Does it irk you that so many people "borrow" your characters and use them in their own crappy stories? 3)Do you think of fanfic as a form of flattery? 4)Do the other writers and the actors feel the same way?
1.) I think fanfic is the sign of a healthy show. Here's what it boils down to: you're telling me that in today's crowded media space, our show made someone love it so much they take time out of their own life to talk about it? Holy. Crap.
To be fair, I have a somewhat different attitude toward media/fans than most people. I think what TV/corporate media had wrong for a long time was how they understood the idea of a "water cooler show." They saw it as making the audience talk about their show, on their terms. So any fan-created media is them losing control of their material. I see this more as the natural evolution of culture in a shared digital age. I will be blunt -- other than the satisfaction of our own creative urges (and all that entails: the quest for perfection, artistry, craft, etc), our job in media is to give you stuff to talk about in your conversations, to integrate into your social circle in whatever way you see fit. I doubt that's TNT's official stance, btw, but they are much cooler about this stuff than most companies.
2.) As far as "borrowing" our characters -- to paraphrase Alan Moore, they didn't go anywhere. There they are, sitting right up on the shelf. Waiting for us to let them loose again. Besides, how many people read a fanfic story? A couple hundred, tops? We have, on average 3.5 million viewers, well into the 4 million range when you get the DVR numbers in. I just don't see someone taking control of our Ideaspace through sheer force of Slashfic.
Sure, a lot of fanfic is crap. Of course it's crap. It's written by people who are not professional writers. If I paint, what I paint is crap. Does that mean I should give up painting and displaying stuff in my neighborhood art show?
3.) Is fanfic flattery? Again, depends on how you define flattery. If someone's writing fanfic with intention of currying favor for some ... er, frankly unguessable benefit, then they're really engaged in an exercise in futility. If you mean flattery as in: it's flattering to think someone is so entertained by our work that it inspires them to talk about it and create around it, then aces.
4.) Most writers and actors don't feel this way. Some, including writers I both like personally and greatly admire, hate the idea of fanfic.
Look, end of day, you should always be trying to create your own material. But fanfic, etc, is a different process than original creation -- which I think is the source of a lot of the controversy.
People who do original creations assume the fan is taking some sort of unearned ownership, somehow implying their act is the same/as difficult as the original act of creation. Which, of course, tees them off (doesn't tee me off, but I'm a very relaxed and often drunk guy).
And some fanfic humans are under the impression that creating fanfic is the same creative process as creating original material -- and are sometimes frustrated that they're not accorded the same respect as the original creators. That's also wrong. Fanfic to me is spiritually much closer to the fan-created music videos.
The basic rule I follow here is one I learned in stand-up comedy: Always punch UP. I am a relatively successful typing human whose words are physically produced using millions of dollars and is distributed nationally by a massive billion dollar corporation to millions of people. Exactly how is a free web page with a 1000 word story about Eliot and Hardison fighting a trans-dimensional incursion of Elves hurting my brand, exactly?
Tell you what -- if some fanfic writer is so good they manage to amass a million-person audience with their web-distributed free stories using my characters, I am going to consider that evolution in action and hire that bastard. Or, at the very least, urge them to go create their own show. But odds are it ain't gonna happen. And that's okay. We write for different reasons.
Wow, that response could be its own blog post. I may break it out later, and shine it a bit.
@catchester: There was a brief overhead shot used when Eliot told Parker he couldn't discuss the council. Until the tap out job that angle was used to show them separating. In the tap out job it was used to show then becoming a team, following each other after a disagreement. I cant see the point of this shot though. Does it have any significance, or do i need a life?
Nope, just an interesting angle. Dean recently retired that shot from the show's vocabulary, coincidentally. It'll be a long time, and in a very specific context, before you see it again.
@Kerri: Was the Parker/gas mask moment a nod to Doctor Who? Or was that just me? Are you my mummy?
Beth found the gas mask among the props and improv-ed that moment.
@Anne: Obviously, the relationship between Nate and Sophie has been foregrounded for much of the series, and has gotten a lot more focus and screentime than any other relationship. Will there ever be an episode or plot arc that puts more significant focus on the (non-romantic) relationships between the other three?
Ep 2o8 comes close, and we have been trying to break the Eliot/Hardison "Defiant Ones" for two damn years. You'll certainly see more of that as the show progresses.
@Shelley: Different sort of questions: How does Emmy nomination work? Is the show eligible with a split season? Do you as the creators and production team decide to send in material for consideration or does the network?
It's a mix between network and studio, I think ... you know what? I never asked. Let me get back to you on that, and ding me if I forget.
@Anna: Are there any plans for a con in Chinatown or some other place like that? I loved Sophie speaking Mandarin!
Ep 209 kind of, although that's a pretty high-concept one that doesn't really live in Chinatown. That one's a bit odd, to tell the truth, to have it as our winter season opener. Although it's a fine ep, if we'd known that was the slot it was going to have, we probably would have developed it differently.
Natalie: This is an odd, random question, but I was wondering about Parker's dating/sex life -- it doesn't seem as if she's had a serious boyfriend, as emotional attachments are probably hard for her, but she's probably not still a virgin. Random hookups, maybe?
... you know what? Gonna pass on that one. But I will say no, no serious boyfriends. I think. I'll check with Beth Riesgraf to see if she agrees. Beth is the Guardian of Parker.
@Jocelyn: Does Eliot really require the use of glasses? (And in turn does Christian as well?) Or are they just something he uses to help build a type of character for a con?
Christian doesn't require them, Eliot does. Although he recently went for lasik -- without anaesthetic.
@Lesley: there was a mention of "stars and bars" when Sophie was coaching Nate on how to get onto the Army base with a stolen ID. If that was actually the line, then why "stars and bars" instead of "stars and stripes"? Here in the South, the stars and bars are the rebel flag. Maybe there's a military meaning that I'm not familiar with. Or Sophie is British and doesn't know the difference. Or I got the whole quote wrong.
By "stars and bars" Sophie meant the general's stars and his medals, or bars. It's a passing beat, but that level of familiarity with military culture shoudl not go unnoticed.
@Mary Sue: Question: Did y'all purposefully dress Parker up like Corky Sherwood-Forrest from Murphy Brown?
Mayyyyyybe.
@briddle: Regarding the 'competence porn'; will they go back to an 'office' setting? It's just not as sexy sitting around Nate's living room. Or are you focusing on the family dynamic instead?
You know, people seem split on the "living room"/"office" choice. Oddly, I'm not sure the couc area works, but I love having a kitchen for them to hang out in. Of course, after the season finale, everything will be different anyway...
@Anonymous: Did Eliot teach Parker how to fake getting hit by a car? I remember he got himself hit in the juror job too. Also, will Hardison ever get to beat someone up? Aldis is a hunk, let him use those muscles! ;)
They're cross-training a little. And while Hardison does not lack bulk ... well, high CON, low DEX, and leave it at that.
@Tania: My question: is there a line you aren't going to cross re the 'baddie' of the week, either because you aren't 'allowed', or you think it would change the tone? For instance, would you take on a paedophile, or a Homeland Security power misuse?
First off, your spelling reveals you're torrenting. Consider yourself spanked. Second, there are villains we talk about who are a bit grungier, but they don't generally have anything interesting to steal. Tone is more important than offending the Man, but also systemic abuses are harder to "go after" than corrupt individuals. We tend to make certain individuals representatives of a corrupt system, and tackle things that way. The Congressman in "The Homecoming Job", for example.
@Jocelyn: Any chance there could be a cast only commentary on the season 2 dvd set of Leverage?
We couldn't have the actors on last year because they were still filming while we were prepping the DVD commentaries. They should wind up on a few of the S2 DVD's
Whew. Okay, I'm going to go watch Tim Hutton yell at the other actors. And I mean YELL. Nate Ford is not in a good place by the season finale, and he's not making very good choices. In a field where bad choices can get somebody killed ...
#205 -- one pf my favorites of this season, perosnally -- was an experiment to some degree. Any showruner will tell you 2nd season's the bear. The one where you go from trying to make 13 perfect little movies to making at least 60 of the bastards. That means playing with the various elements of the show. The metaphor I always use is that you're driving down the highway, and you need to be able to change lanes -- character, plot, tone, template, etc -- as many ways as possible to keep from getting stale. Sometimes, you're gonna bang off the guardrail, granted, but it's a necessary process.
So this was an attempt to figure out what we could steal or retrieve for a client that was a bit more ... ephemeral than the standard bag 'o cash. That married up nicely with our desire to take on one of the cable bullies.
The center of the episode is almost thrown away in, well, the center of the episode, when Monica Hunter explains what her job is: "I sell fear." This is one of those things about Pundit Parasites I find particularly offensive (really, John? We had no idea.). I mean, the crime rate in New York is the lowest it's been in 42 years -- it's almost as safe to ride the subway now as it was back when Mad Men was happening, yet nice middle-Americans still treat urban centers as hellholes. Your kid is literally as likely to be struck by lightning as abducted and killed, and yet we're lojacking our kids. We have nice, ill-informed old people with trembling lips begging their Congressmen not to vote for "death panels." All because selling fear, making sure people believe something unspeakable is about to happen at any time is cheap, easy and big business.
There's a general rule we have on the show, in that the villain should be brought down by some version of his original sin. Hunter's sin was selling fear, and that's the fate she earned.
The classic film structure for paranoia is, of course, Three Days of the Condor. Toss that in the bag, add a military base the nice Army Reserve folk loaned us, mix it up, and Bob's your uncle. (For what it's worth, the whole "journalists are lazy"/using the same sources run was mine -- so feel free to address your angry emails in my direction.)
Beth Broderick, as only the second female villain we've had, was amazing. Funny, willing to do anything, and she really got the type of human we were parodying. By which I mean a completely random type of human, not one person. In a litigation sense.
All right, let's dive in to the mailbag. As always, all opinions are mine, this is not an official TNT site, etc., etc.:
@JohnSeavey: How's the show doing on DVD? Happy good numbers? How important are happy good DVD numbers to the continued run of a series on TV?
We won't have DVD numbers for a while, as we have a distribution deal through, I think, MGM. For a lot of shows it makes a difference as -- and this is new -- the studio that owns the network is leveraging shitty ad sales from a low-rated show against the DVD sales of a show with said tiny but passionate audience. (DVD sales are flattening out, however, so that's going to change. ) It's also a matter of building a library for future resale. TV shows accumulate material quickly, rapidly increasing the value of a studio's library.
All that said, we're in a different situation as we're independently produced so the math is skewed.
@ChrisAyers: Many times at the end of a con, the team gives the client a check, presumably for whatever amount he/she/they have coming to them. I've often wondered how the clients explain this sudden windfall to the bank and or the IRS when they go to deposit it...not to mention the kid getting a full fledged business in the ultimate fighting episode. Seems like that much unexplained money showing up could raise several thousand red flags.
Madoff ran a fifty billion dollar Ponzi scheme. For ten years.
All joking aside, Hardison's primary (if visually uninteresting) skill set is moving money around and working within the confines of the modern financial system. He's got the clients covered in complicated lease-to-own agreements.
@Jodih: Last season in the Miracle Job Eliot made mention of a nephew... Are we ever going to hear about him again or find out some other tidbit about Eliot's family?
They live in the shadows as immortals, so it's tricky ... Every time you introduce a family member, you're closing another story avenue. I'm leery of it. In this particular show, we like to keep the characters' backstories as blank-slate-y as possible.
@Bryan-Mitchell: Will there ever be an episode where the issue isn't so black and white? Where maybe it isn't as obvious that the bad guy is "bad" or that maybe the team members are split on if the issue warrants their involvement?
Eh. We'll probably do that at some point (one could argue the Hurley story was one), but as I've mentioned before, we're a pulp show. People tune in to watch banter and evil-smiting. We're pretty happy living in that world.
@catchester: I think the isues of good and evil and the team being split have already been dealt with a lot, considering there has only been 17 episodes. Like in the nigerian job, where the good guy client turned into the bad guy. Or the 12 step job where the bad guy was just mixed up and had good intentions. Or the wedding and beantown bailout jobs that Nate didnt want anything to do with. Then there's the stork job where Eliot thinks kidnapping a child isnt what they do and Parker later goes against the team decision and tries to rescue all the children. Or the fairy godparent job where Sophie and Eliot both object to using a child in their con. Most of Leverage seems to be a gray area to me. Thats one of the things i like about it.
Or ... that. (I honestly answer these questions one at a time, without reading them first, so there you go)
@Anonymous: What PR genius decided to advertise Nancy Grace's new book during this episode of Leverage? This is either idiocy or evil genius.
To be fair, they buy that ad time months in advance. And besides, our show had nothing to do with Nancy Grace. No-thing.
@Samantha: 1. Where do all the characters live in relation to one another? It would be weirdly hilarious/codependent if they all lived in the same building. 2. Parker's bizarre--sexual tension, I guess? with ladies is A+++, but will there ever be a payoff? Or is it just a throwaway gag? 3. Will there be a gag reel on the s2 dvds? My need for outtakes burns with all the blue-white intensity of an O-class star.
1.) Boston's not that big. Although we never establish it, in my head: Hardison got a place near Nate, Eliot got himself a place out on the water, probably Quincy, out on Hough's Neck (rides his motorcycle in to avoid the traffic) Sophie's in one of the new downtown condos, and Parker ... Parker's living arrangements are kind of special.
2.) I think she just has a weird energy with everybody. Although you're not the first person to have mentioned that.
3.) Geesh, wish we were rolling on that take where we opened the door on Beth and Geri and they were making out. I could have knocked off questions #2 and #3 in one go.
@Nicole: My question is this: Is Sophie's leadership suffering this time around because of Nate's control issues (jumping in on her, where while he was drunk he'd be more laid back) and because of her break up? Don't Hardison and Eliot compliment her leadership abilities in Second David Job (which was after the building blown up, to be fair...). I'm just a little confused about how that character arc is tracking...
Running a crew's a bear, and Nate poking her doesn't help. Also, this is her first time running a con where she's not stealing anything. Much trickier. But yeah, with one or two more under her belt, Sophie could run the crew. Although in a high stakes situation that'll be on in the winter, it's actually somebody else who steps into the big chair ...
@adc1966: And was Beth Broderick really climbing that fence herself in a skirt and heels? What a trouper.
Yep. She took the hit from the cop, too.
@cliff: Golf claps for "Project Destiny", good sir.
Hey, you have something from an old movie that's also a decent stripper name? You use it.
@Antisocial Butterfly: Quick Question: What is Area 52? Or at least what do you imagine it to be? Also I love that Eliot knows the truth about the government conspiracies. I'd expect that of Hardison, but it makes sense now that Eliot would know it too.
Area 52 is where they're building the cyborg from Global Frequency -- which would have been episode 13 of the first season, btw. And of course Eliot knows about this stuff. Let's just say that Hardison's phone is not the only one Eliot carries with him at all times. (I may have to hit Warren up to make that canon ...)
@Ashley: Question. Was the scene with Eliot wearing the apron and snapping on the plastic gloves taken from ShowTimes "Dexter," or was it just a coincidence?
It was just meant to be as creepy as possible. Not intentionally Dexter-y, but I don't think you can avoid the comparisons, honestly.
@Gordon: Question time: Monica Hunter was obviously quite substantively based on the Queen Bottom Feeder, Nancy Grace. Given HN and TNT are part of the same corporate "family," how did this help, hassle or hinder your creating the character?
I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, I think there are a fair number of cable humans who could reasonably pass for Monica Hunter. For a bunch of corporate overlords in suits, TNT are pretty cool about letting us nail whatever corporate overlord in a suit catches out passing fancy.
@heartspeed: Is Parker really that gullible? I wasn't sure if she was just joking around with them in her strange off beat way or she really was totally going for it all Area 52 and The Council lol. / @Kes: Does Elliot actually believe the moon landing was faked or is he just playing with Parker's head?
Parker's knowledge of anything non-thief related is sketchy (much like Sherlock Holmes). I think the answer is whatever you find most entertaining.
@Anonymous: So Parker is "killed" right outside the studio and then gets up and walks away while everyone watches? And this miraculous recovery never gets back to Hunter? Hmmm....
Ah-HA, my friend. No one else at the station met Beth, Hunter leaves that location directly, talks to the Nate, is then only back in the studio for five minutes before she freaks out, and the rest of the episode rolls out without interruption. No time for pipe, Doctor Jones!
@SapphireSmoke: How is it that all of the characters can act as well as they do? Most people have difficulties acting, especially under stressful situations. And even Parker, who at one point couldn't act to save her life... for being so socially inept and always bluntly honest, she seems to have progressed so far with lying/acting in such a short time. Granted, she's still not the best, but I just find it a little unrealistic that all of them can do it as well as they do.
Each one can act in very specific contexts. You can not let Hardison do the long con (as will be made painfully clear in Ep #208), as much as he wants to. Parker's okay as long as the character is meant to be off-putting, and she has Sophie in her ear. Eliot, ironically, is the second best grifter after Sophie. But, again, in very specific circumstances.
@sjrSpike: General question -- Nate is Nate, Eliot is Eliot, Sophie is Sophie, Parker is Parker -- so why is Alec Hardison? They all call each other by first name, except Hardison.
There's something about "Hardisonnnnn" through gritted teeth that makes it funnier. Honestly, just by sound. I also have a habit of calling people by their last names, so some of that probably blended in.
@VideoBeagle: Something that ocured to me.. the pilot made "we're funding this with an alternate revenue stream" was gonna be a reoccurring phrase...yet it didn't. Does the team still play the market to make the money to keep them funded and keep the toys coming in?
Yes, and they take a small percentage for operating expenses.
@Coren: But I want [the song from "Twelve Step"] now! How might I go about this? Also, are there more? If so, gimme!
I'd love to do a soundtrack, actually. We'll look into it.
@NancyH: (1) Was the reference to Area 51 & Area 52 an intentional play on the containers in "Homecoming?" (2) Is there a good site to see what the viewer numbers per episode are?
1.) No. 2.) You know, I don't know. If you follow the #leverage Twitter tag, somebody usually throws up a link.
@McDevite: my boyfriend and I, both of whom work in politics, wanted to know how much of the latter half of the Hunter story was influenced by Glen Beck?
Even Monica Hunter isn't as crazy as Glenn Beck.
@Anonymous: if Nate worked art fraud for IYS, how did he end up chasing Hardison? Did Nate work computer fraud or did Alec steal some art?
Nate ran across Hardison as the financial mastermind in a couple complicated insurance scams, more as a back-end facilitator.
@Alexandra: the cons seem to be moving further away from "stealing stuff" and closer to mind control (Order-23 and this one, though the Tap-Out Job had hints of it as well). While I love this direction, I'm wondering if this season will bring us just a straight up stealing-lots-of-money-from-somebody episode?.
That was, as mentioned above, intentional. A big part of the show's moral satisfaction comes from the villain's suffering, not just losing an "amount." And hey, 60 episodes, at some point in the low 30's you stole everything interesting you're gonna steal.
That said, we steal a lot of stuff over the course of this 15 episodes. Money, diamonds and a Russian artifact all coming up in the back 6.
@Bates: How much of your casting process is the standard casting director/auditions/etc. versus approaching a particular actor? (Or, for that matter, even creating a role from the get-go with someone specific in mind?)
Pretty much all of it is through casting directors, although we have a combo burrito with Lana Veenker in Portland and April Webster and Scott David in LA. Occasionally we have actors in mind, but usually we submit the breakdowns or scripts and let the casting directors do their jobs. We've brought very, very few actors in from other cities -- generally one an episode -- so almost everything goes through straight casting.
The only role I can think of that was written for a specific actor was Sterling. We did the full-on casting dance, but we intended for Mark Sheppard to play that role and fate decided to reward us.
@Calos b. (and others): Why was Nate wearing a black-and-white urban camo uniform (which isn't worn by the Army) when all the other soldiers were actually wearing the correct uniforms? Was this meant to add to the "black ops" conspiracy theme, or was this just the only uniform you could find in Portland?
We found plenty of real uniforms in Portland -- as a matter of fact, all the soldiers at the Army base are Reservists wearing their own uniforms. Portland has yet to disappoint on any aspect of the film-making process.
No, our problem was a purely production-oriented one: we didn't want to buzz Nate's hair and live with the look for, oh, say, five damn episodes. As a result, we really couldn't put him in a standard general's uniform. We almost spiked the character until, nicely enough, our former Army/spook dude consultant let us know that the Special Ops guys back from Afghanistan often sport long hair and beards when they return from working abroad, and don't cut it between assignments. We matched that with the black and white urban camo -- which checked out with our guys, but hey, YMMW -- and went with that look. It seemed to mesh nicely with the conspiracy tone of the episode. So, it was as close as we could get -- which, I will remind everyone, I've stated will never, ever be quite right.
@619: I personally HATE fanfic so I was wondering..... 1)How do YOU feel about fan fiction? 2)Does it irk you that so many people "borrow" your characters and use them in their own crappy stories? 3)Do you think of fanfic as a form of flattery? 4)Do the other writers and the actors feel the same way?
1.) I think fanfic is the sign of a healthy show. Here's what it boils down to: you're telling me that in today's crowded media space, our show made someone love it so much they take time out of their own life to talk about it? Holy. Crap.
To be fair, I have a somewhat different attitude toward media/fans than most people. I think what TV/corporate media had wrong for a long time was how they understood the idea of a "water cooler show." They saw it as making the audience talk about their show, on their terms. So any fan-created media is them losing control of their material. I see this more as the natural evolution of culture in a shared digital age. I will be blunt -- other than the satisfaction of our own creative urges (and all that entails: the quest for perfection, artistry, craft, etc), our job in media is to give you stuff to talk about in your conversations, to integrate into your social circle in whatever way you see fit. I doubt that's TNT's official stance, btw, but they are much cooler about this stuff than most companies.
2.) As far as "borrowing" our characters -- to paraphrase Alan Moore, they didn't go anywhere. There they are, sitting right up on the shelf. Waiting for us to let them loose again. Besides, how many people read a fanfic story? A couple hundred, tops? We have, on average 3.5 million viewers, well into the 4 million range when you get the DVR numbers in. I just don't see someone taking control of our Ideaspace through sheer force of Slashfic.
Sure, a lot of fanfic is crap. Of course it's crap. It's written by people who are not professional writers. If I paint, what I paint is crap. Does that mean I should give up painting and displaying stuff in my neighborhood art show?
3.) Is fanfic flattery? Again, depends on how you define flattery. If someone's writing fanfic with intention of currying favor for some ... er, frankly unguessable benefit, then they're really engaged in an exercise in futility. If you mean flattery as in: it's flattering to think someone is so entertained by our work that it inspires them to talk about it and create around it, then aces.
4.) Most writers and actors don't feel this way. Some, including writers I both like personally and greatly admire, hate the idea of fanfic.
Look, end of day, you should always be trying to create your own material. But fanfic, etc, is a different process than original creation -- which I think is the source of a lot of the controversy.
People who do original creations assume the fan is taking some sort of unearned ownership, somehow implying their act is the same/as difficult as the original act of creation. Which, of course, tees them off (doesn't tee me off, but I'm a very relaxed and often drunk guy).
And some fanfic humans are under the impression that creating fanfic is the same creative process as creating original material -- and are sometimes frustrated that they're not accorded the same respect as the original creators. That's also wrong. Fanfic to me is spiritually much closer to the fan-created music videos.
The basic rule I follow here is one I learned in stand-up comedy: Always punch UP. I am a relatively successful typing human whose words are physically produced using millions of dollars and is distributed nationally by a massive billion dollar corporation to millions of people. Exactly how is a free web page with a 1000 word story about Eliot and Hardison fighting a trans-dimensional incursion of Elves hurting my brand, exactly?
Tell you what -- if some fanfic writer is so good they manage to amass a million-person audience with their web-distributed free stories using my characters, I am going to consider that evolution in action and hire that bastard. Or, at the very least, urge them to go create their own show. But odds are it ain't gonna happen. And that's okay. We write for different reasons.
Wow, that response could be its own blog post. I may break it out later, and shine it a bit.
@catchester: There was a brief overhead shot used when Eliot told Parker he couldn't discuss the council. Until the tap out job that angle was used to show them separating. In the tap out job it was used to show then becoming a team, following each other after a disagreement. I cant see the point of this shot though. Does it have any significance, or do i need a life?
Nope, just an interesting angle. Dean recently retired that shot from the show's vocabulary, coincidentally. It'll be a long time, and in a very specific context, before you see it again.
@Kerri: Was the Parker/gas mask moment a nod to Doctor Who? Or was that just me? Are you my mummy?
Beth found the gas mask among the props and improv-ed that moment.
@Anne: Obviously, the relationship between Nate and Sophie has been foregrounded for much of the series, and has gotten a lot more focus and screentime than any other relationship. Will there ever be an episode or plot arc that puts more significant focus on the (non-romantic) relationships between the other three?
Ep 2o8 comes close, and we have been trying to break the Eliot/Hardison "Defiant Ones" for two damn years. You'll certainly see more of that as the show progresses.
@Shelley: Different sort of questions: How does Emmy nomination work? Is the show eligible with a split season? Do you as the creators and production team decide to send in material for consideration or does the network?
It's a mix between network and studio, I think ... you know what? I never asked. Let me get back to you on that, and ding me if I forget.
@Anna: Are there any plans for a con in Chinatown or some other place like that? I loved Sophie speaking Mandarin!
Ep 209 kind of, although that's a pretty high-concept one that doesn't really live in Chinatown. That one's a bit odd, to tell the truth, to have it as our winter season opener. Although it's a fine ep, if we'd known that was the slot it was going to have, we probably would have developed it differently.
Natalie: This is an odd, random question, but I was wondering about Parker's dating/sex life -- it doesn't seem as if she's had a serious boyfriend, as emotional attachments are probably hard for her, but she's probably not still a virgin. Random hookups, maybe?
... you know what? Gonna pass on that one. But I will say no, no serious boyfriends. I think. I'll check with Beth Riesgraf to see if she agrees. Beth is the Guardian of Parker.
@Jocelyn: Does Eliot really require the use of glasses? (And in turn does Christian as well?) Or are they just something he uses to help build a type of character for a con?
Christian doesn't require them, Eliot does. Although he recently went for lasik -- without anaesthetic.
@Lesley: there was a mention of "stars and bars" when Sophie was coaching Nate on how to get onto the Army base with a stolen ID. If that was actually the line, then why "stars and bars" instead of "stars and stripes"? Here in the South, the stars and bars are the rebel flag. Maybe there's a military meaning that I'm not familiar with. Or Sophie is British and doesn't know the difference. Or I got the whole quote wrong.
By "stars and bars" Sophie meant the general's stars and his medals, or bars. It's a passing beat, but that level of familiarity with military culture shoudl not go unnoticed.
@Mary Sue: Question: Did y'all purposefully dress Parker up like Corky Sherwood-Forrest from Murphy Brown?
Mayyyyyybe.
@briddle: Regarding the 'competence porn'; will they go back to an 'office' setting? It's just not as sexy sitting around Nate's living room. Or are you focusing on the family dynamic instead?
You know, people seem split on the "living room"/"office" choice. Oddly, I'm not sure the couc area works, but I love having a kitchen for them to hang out in. Of course, after the season finale, everything will be different anyway...
@Anonymous: Did Eliot teach Parker how to fake getting hit by a car? I remember he got himself hit in the juror job too. Also, will Hardison ever get to beat someone up? Aldis is a hunk, let him use those muscles! ;)
They're cross-training a little. And while Hardison does not lack bulk ... well, high CON, low DEX, and leave it at that.
@Tania: My question: is there a line you aren't going to cross re the 'baddie' of the week, either because you aren't 'allowed', or you think it would change the tone? For instance, would you take on a paedophile, or a Homeland Security power misuse?
First off, your spelling reveals you're torrenting. Consider yourself spanked. Second, there are villains we talk about who are a bit grungier, but they don't generally have anything interesting to steal. Tone is more important than offending the Man, but also systemic abuses are harder to "go after" than corrupt individuals. We tend to make certain individuals representatives of a corrupt system, and tackle things that way. The Congressman in "The Homecoming Job", for example.
@Jocelyn: Any chance there could be a cast only commentary on the season 2 dvd set of Leverage?
We couldn't have the actors on last year because they were still filming while we were prepping the DVD commentaries. They should wind up on a few of the S2 DVD's
Whew. Okay, I'm going to go watch Tim Hutton yell at the other actors. And I mean YELL. Nate Ford is not in a good place by the season finale, and he's not making very good choices. In a field where bad choices can get somebody killed ...
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Question Post for LEVERAGE #206 "The Top Hat Job"
Elbow deep in the blue revisions, people, and then heading out to scout locations for the finale. I'll tackle last week's questions and this week's over the weekend, before we start shooting Sunday.
And yes, although #207 has a big emotional finale, 208/209 work fine for a season tag, and set the status change for the team going into the winter season. Most Summer/Winter season split shows go 8/7, so shifting from 7/8 to 9/6 isn't THAT big a deal. And considering it's a big vote of confidence from the network, I ain't complaining. Also, 208 and 209 are among my favorite episodes (209 is the super-Rockford-y one), so I'm pleased.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em in Comments. This week is another light-hearted change-up, before the Armageddon that is 207.
And yes, although #207 has a big emotional finale, 208/209 work fine for a season tag, and set the status change for the team going into the winter season. Most Summer/Winter season split shows go 8/7, so shifting from 7/8 to 9/6 isn't THAT big a deal. And considering it's a big vote of confidence from the network, I ain't complaining. Also, 208 and 209 are among my favorite episodes (209 is the super-Rockford-y one), so I'm pleased.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em in Comments. This week is another light-hearted change-up, before the Armageddon that is 207.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sand-imation
h/t Neil Gaiman. On the road back to Portland for the duration, I'll check in with you on the weekend, people.
Question Post for LEVERAGE #205 "The Three Days of the Hunter Job"
Sophie on the rebound. Spunky Parker. Eliot and a bone saw. I look forward to your feedback and questions in the Comments.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
LEVERAGE #204 "The Fairy Godparents Job" Post-game
All I want to do is sleep ...
"Regarding ratings information... this is exciting as I actually have information that is useful, as I'm a tv research monkey (for a small cable network that is not TNT - just had to get that out there).
When you watch a show on DVR within the same day that it originally airs, it counts in the Live + Same Day, which is the number that is generally used in press releases when a show's good numbers are being pimped in the trades or mainstream press. Sales groups will also use it. Live+7 data will give you more bang for your buck, as that includes viewers who watched the Live viewing (i.e. no DVR), the Live + Same Day viewing and up to seven days following. However, it takes around 17 days for that data to become available, so it's hard to use for press stories. Digital streaming (legally anyway) is taken into account, but to a much, much lesser degree, as many, many fewer folks get their television viewing from that means. Of course, as someone mentioned, if you're not a Nielsen household, it doesn't really matter when you watch. "
This ep was born in the pre-season, when it was just the three of us in the room. Downey and Berg working hard, and me working even harder at ignoring the bottle of Black Bush in the corner of the writers' room. We were deep in what we called "The Madoff Variations". In particular, the story of Madoff's wife innocently trying to mail $1 million in jewelry -- as one does -- caught our attention. I mean, the guy had Feds up the wazoo, where was he hiding these assets?
And we have to admit, we were totally entranced by the Madoff story. Not for the normal reasons -- the scale of the Ponzi scheme was magnificent, yes, but it was more because we'd spent a year immersing ourselves in arcane cons and crimes. We were throwing out stories, or doing weird twists on them, that other heist shows used as their episode-long A plot, because we knew them so well and were convinced other people would also see right through such classic tropes. But a ten year Ponzi scheme -- as I've said before, that's the fiscal equivalent of telling people you're going to fly to the moon in the refrigerator box and having no one blink an eye.
That led us to "booty in the apartment" (it's amazing how often we cross over with pirate -- or at least privateer - terminology) and that crossed over with a pitch of Berg's, "steal a private school." The whole thing really clicked for me when I first heard "This kid has the world's greatest thieves as his Fairy Godparents" in the room. That was it for me, that moment. Everything else was filler.
Originally, the first act was comprised of multiple, foiled attempts to get the villain and the FBI out of the apartment. For budgetary and scheduling reasons those went away, and we wound up with one of the most sedate first acts we've ever had. Good Lord, how we agonized over spending so much time in the briefing scene in this ep. Ironically, this episode arrived just as we were collating feedback off the 'net and found, stunningly, you people love the briefing scenes. For we writers, it was always X pages of pipe we tried to make as entertaining as possible and move past to get into the plot. For the audience, watching competent people banter and plan was a big part of the appeal. "Competence porn" as we started calling it.
This is one of the neat things about television. It's on long enough that it evolves into its own beast. You don't throw 50 pages of script in front of 4 million people a week or four months and not have some unexpected stuff happen.
All the musical numbers were composed by Amy Berg and Jo LeDuca -- who did a STUNNING job -- with the sole exception of Miss Kim's fusion song, which was how I originally pitched the bit. The room was regaled multiple times with me doing the "fusion/confusion" song, ending with the big, panting, Flashdance hopeful pose. And, of course, once you have musical, you must have Frakes.
As for Sophie's boyfriend -- I think there are some questions about that, we'll deal with them in that section. If not, I'll back up and re-address.
Before we move on to the credits, I would like to call out that the scrappy young man who wrote the song featured in "The Beantown Bailout Job", Andy Lange, has his own music website up at http://www.andylangemusic.com/ and also on MySpace. Go buy his fine, haunting ballads and book his dreaminess at your local college and coffee shops.
Right, mailbag:
@marga: is jonathan frakes the most underestimated and undervalued director in serial television? :-)
Yes. There's nothing quite like hearing him bellow "Red Alert" across the set. All kidding aside, he's a fantastic director who knows where the jokes are. Such people do not fall from trees.
@Coren: Okay, I got three questions. Last week's questions, you mentioned "a habit that gave us a great moment last year when one of his US prosecutor friends said, essentially, "Holy shit. That would work ..."" - which con/episode was that?
The poison pill strategy in "The Juror #6 Job" was one of the cons that had a real world variation, if I remember.
Zwei! Also from last week "That said, there's a lot of improv-ing, and we use quite a bit of it." - is that why there's so many deleted scenes of the same scene from the Homecoming Job on the DVD?
The poison pill strategy in "The Juror #6 Job" was one of the cons that had a real world variation, if I remember.
Zwei! Also from last week "That said, there's a lot of improv-ing, and we use quite a bit of it." - is that why there's so many deleted scenes of the same scene from the Homecoming Job on the DVD?
Yes. A lot of the scenes have con exposition, and if you want the story to make sense, the actors can't drift too far off it. So they choose when they play, and we almost always wind up using it.
San! At various points there have been mentions of names for other cons (apple pie and cherry pie come to mind) - do these really exist, or are they just things you guys made up on the spot (and if they do exist, what the heck are they?)
San! At various points there have been mentions of names for other cons (apple pie and cherry pie come to mind) - do these really exist, or are they just things you guys made up on the spot (and if they do exist, what the heck are they?)
The Apple Pie is a regional variant of the Honey Pot. We use a lot of shorthand names that are real, but then we salt them with either own our nicknames or sometimes just make them up. To my great delight, a few weeks ago I cooked up "the Zanzibar Marketplace" as an art-heist variant, and had no idea the writers spent two days on the internet trying to research the con.
You know, someone else had a similar question ...
@US Raider: My question is: there are quite a few named con games in existence. Do the writers look at these cons and try to somehow implement them into the team's work or does the show have "consultants" who offer up ideas as to the type of con for them to run?
Apollo Robbins, who we've discussed before, is our consultant. But at this point, we've pretty much got a basic con vocabulary. We look at our bad guy, our setting, and cook up a con. He mostly gives us very particular information now, like how card-skimmers work, how to fool metal detectors, and most recently the specific terminology used by cold readers. You can see Apollo in ep 207, btw, damn near stealing the show.
That seems to lead into another one ...
@ThomasD: A follow-up to last week's comment. My wife, the neuroscientist, was curious how someone becomes a consultant for television shows or movies. Do you seek out people knowledgeable in their field or is there some sort of agency that matches up police officers with cop shows, lawyers with legal dramas, and Winston Zeddemore with the folks on Supernatural? How does a show find the right people?
Some consultants have agents, but it's mostly word of mouth. We found Apollo while researching video on YouTube about pickpocketing. He was hosting another show in England. I said, "Man, I wish we could get a guy like that." To which Downey replied "... why don't we just get that guy?" Filthy Assistant found his agent, he happend to be in LA for the week, we hooked up, and bam.
You know, someone else had a similar question ...
@US Raider: My question is: there are quite a few named con games in existence. Do the writers look at these cons and try to somehow implement them into the team's work or does the show have "consultants" who offer up ideas as to the type of con for them to run?
Apollo Robbins, who we've discussed before, is our consultant. But at this point, we've pretty much got a basic con vocabulary. We look at our bad guy, our setting, and cook up a con. He mostly gives us very particular information now, like how card-skimmers work, how to fool metal detectors, and most recently the specific terminology used by cold readers. You can see Apollo in ep 207, btw, damn near stealing the show.
That seems to lead into another one ...
@ThomasD: A follow-up to last week's comment. My wife, the neuroscientist, was curious how someone becomes a consultant for television shows or movies. Do you seek out people knowledgeable in their field or is there some sort of agency that matches up police officers with cop shows, lawyers with legal dramas, and Winston Zeddemore with the folks on Supernatural? How does a show find the right people?
Some consultants have agents, but it's mostly word of mouth. We found Apollo while researching video on YouTube about pickpocketing. He was hosting another show in England. I said, "Man, I wish we could get a guy like that." To which Downey replied "... why don't we just get that guy?" Filthy Assistant found his agent, he happend to be in LA for the week, we hooked up, and bam.
@catchester: Just out of curiosity, whats the budget for this season and which episodes will be the most expensive and cheapest to make?
We're at a bog-standard cable budget of about $2 million an ep, with some funky overhead because we're self-financed. And by "self-financed" I mean "Dean." The only studio in Hollywood that fits into one pair of pants. The most expensive will probably be the two-part winter season finale, and the cheapest will be our bottle show, #211.
@kenny: I watch the show anywhere between 1 day and 1 week later on a Comcast DVR in California. Does making sure I watch it within 24 hours help out in some way?
Weirdly, yes, the way DVR numbers are counted, it does matter when you watch us. But DVR numbers still aren't monetized properly, so don't worry too much. Just enjoy the show. HEre. here's commenter harx1, all credit due, to explain it better:
"Regarding ratings information... this is exciting as I actually have information that is useful, as I'm a tv research monkey (for a small cable network that is not TNT - just had to get that out there).
When you watch a show on DVR within the same day that it originally airs, it counts in the Live + Same Day, which is the number that is generally used in press releases when a show's good numbers are being pimped in the trades or mainstream press. Sales groups will also use it. Live+7 data will give you more bang for your buck, as that includes viewers who watched the Live viewing (i.e. no DVR), the Live + Same Day viewing and up to seven days following. However, it takes around 17 days for that data to become available, so it's hard to use for press stories. Digital streaming (legally anyway) is taken into account, but to a much, much lesser degree, as many, many fewer folks get their television viewing from that means. Of course, as someone mentioned, if you're not a Nielsen household, it doesn't really matter when you watch. "
@Tom: When do eps get posted on Netflix/TNT.tv? It's Wednesday (Leverage Day) and I've got the day off, which leads me to wonder why if an episode is already ready to air and is most definitely sitting in a directory on the server a link can't be posted to itnow rather than later? What's the difference, other than helping/hurting me with this boredom affliction?
Getting the first broadcast window is one of the things that motivates TNT to give us what's called our "license fee." It's what we use to pay for the show. If you can get Leverage somewhere else, sooner, then we're less valuable to TNT's advertisers, and so we're less valuable to the network. How and when eps are broadcast, stream, download, all those things are very tightly controlled by various suited humans and their contracts. That said, I think we're on Netflix the very next day.
@melodyanne: Are the 2 FBI agents going to be a recurring thing in the show? I thought it was brilliant how they were brought back in. They threw a total wrench in the plan yet it seemed to work out better in the end.
In our heads, Taggert and McSweeten are now enjoying a meteoric rise through he FBI thanks to solving the cases Leverage drops on their laps. Even now, we have other FBI agents in shows mutter "I'm no Taggert and McSweeten, sure, but I deserve some respect." You may never hear it aloud, but be sure, it is ever upmost in their minds.
@Nicole: My question is, does Parker realize she's flirting with the FBI agent or is it just her natural feminine allure that attracts him? Because in the deleted scenes she seems to have trouble with the ol' wink and shimmy.
She just likes him. And luckily for her, he digs quirky. It's more like ... she's surprised to find this particular human interaction doesn't suck, and so she enjoys his company.
@Becky: Was Skylar based off anyone in particular?
We all know a Skylar. Poor, raging, doomed Skylar.
@VideoBeagle: Nate seemed a bit uncaring about Widmark...Jobs over, time to go, don't worry about the kid...which is a bit...different for him from season 1. Is it just how the story played, or is this more of the Dark Nate story?
Nate does seem a little more easily distracted from the human cost of his vengeance this year, eh?
@Taima: will we ever learn Sophie's true name?
That is a very good question.
@Gordon: was all the eating a way of covering up Sophie's baby weight?
Nope, Sophie's just a stress eater.
@briddie: I like the way they dress in dark grays and blacks when they're themselves and put on colorful clothes as part of the con personalities. I'm assuming that's intentional, right? Will they wear brighter colors as they become more comfortable with each other?
No, they'll stay in "criminal mode" while being themselves and "colorful con mode" when on the grift. although Hardison's wardrobe can get a little funky.
@Chelle: I do have a question: How much fun did Chris have shooting the scene with all the kids? He looked like he had a lot of fun, and the kids did too.
He loved it, and the kids loved him. As noted before, kids tend to treat Kane like Batman. Sadly cut for time is an extended version of the fencing class, where we see Eliot react to a gym without any balls. Should be on the DVD.
@Save- vs-DM: I've noticed that a lot of the team are starting to take jobs that are outside their normal "roles" as the series has been progressing. Will we see more of this as the series matures and the group begins teaching each other how they do what they do so well?
Although they'll always stay true to their roles, they have been cross-training. In particular, this week (ep 205) somebody unexpected gets to hack.
@ unadiagrand: I understand how Sophie's many identities and her inability to reconcile herself with nearly all of them was a focal point of this episode, but it seemed like the boyfriend mentioned in the pilot was shown only to stir up old doubts within her. And break up with her. I get that there's a thingbetween Nate and Sophie, but Nate's a brilliant train wreck, and I feel Sophie deserves to explore her options more before getting back into that agonizingly adorable "will we or won't we" limbo with Nate. Also, and no offense to the actor, but her ex was just not that hot. (That was actually pretty offensive; sorry, actor!) So? Is there someone better in the cards for our Miss Sophie Devereaux? 2.) Are Hardison and Parker ever going to hook up? 3) And hey, what's up with Eliot? He's a good looking man, and a man's got needs! Or so I've heard He's got no one to have that kind of chemistry with on the team. Which makes me sad in my heart. Are you going to ease the sadness in my heart? 4) What was up with that odd double take that Sophie did at the end? She seemed quite taken aback to see the mark's family at the clinic. I understand she was surprised, but she seemed as if her world view had been fundamentally altered. Why was that?
1.) The boyfriend was indeed going to be a running character. And then Gina wound up preggers, and the timetable of her arc shifted. We particularly didn't want to confuse the audience with a boyfriend character and then obvious physical signs of her pregnancy. So, the bf exited earlier than expected. Until the robot actors come, it will ever be thus (and I was PROMISED my goddam robot actors by now...)
2.) They are just now gently learning of the Secret Garden. Do not rush them.
3.) Eliot does just fine. He doesn't crap where he eats.
4.) Sophie was just processing seeing Widmark again. Nothing big intended.
2.) They are just now gently learning of the Secret Garden. Do not rush them.
3.) Eliot does just fine. He doesn't crap where he eats.
4.) Sophie was just processing seeing Widmark again. Nothing big intended.
@CandyMaize: Loved the kids tackling Eliot at the end of the martial arts instruction.
I think that was originally scripted as just a joke beat where the kids look at each other, but Frakes had the kids rush Chris.
@Dylan: i have a question, why does almost all of the characters say "seriously" in their lines? especially Hardison.. is that significant or sumthin? jus treally wonderin.. =)
It's a verbal tic of mine, when wronged by my surly staff. Berg started using it while on set, the actors picked it up, and we wound up scripting it. It's now a show in-joke. What's delightful is that each character has a specific, aggrieved version of the delivery.
@Anonymous: One question - has Sophie always been aware that she's not a great actress (or at least, that other people don't think she is) or is it a recent realization?
She has, at the very least, always believed she was improving, if not actually good. She ain't an idiot, though.
@Ashley: I also missed the flashbacks! Where have they gone?
Off-story joke beats -- first things cut when the schedule gets hairy. We've got a great one coming up in #206, though.
@Steven: My question: how did you manage to get a character named Mark Sanford? And: was that written before this summer?
Sheer blind luck.
@Anna: My question is, how much more Hardison/Parker unresolved sexual tension (on Hardison's part at least) can we expect to see this season? And does it bother you that more fans (or so it seems) are shipping Eliot/Parker?
More fans are shipping Nate/Eliot. Let's be honest here.
Their relationship is quietly percolating. She asked for time, he's going to give it to her. But there is that shot in 208 ...
@susanne: Please can you put Hardison in a dress? If I ask nicely?
I'll ask Aldis.
@Denita: My question this week is about character motivation. Last season, the entire group seemed driven by something, both as individuals and as a team. Heck, so did Sterling. But now, even though they're back together, it feels like something's missing. Like they aren't quite as dedicated to what they're doing or something. They don't feel like a team yet. Is it just me or is that what you've intended?
Hmm, I don't personally see what you're talking about in the stories, but, as far as how it might be pinging you in particular ... it may be that since Nate's drive has changed, the team's drive feels like it's changed. But it hasn't -- their drive is, frankly, to be a family. This is what allows them to do that, without having to deal with their emotions.
@DaveMB: I understand that Star Trek: TOS, for example, had an outside consulting firm that checked all their names very carefully against some (paper?) database to avoid conflicts and potential legal action. Yet in this show you named a Boston-based financial firm "Fidelity" and an exclusive private school "Dalton". Do the lawyers no longer care about such things, or do you just not listen to them?
Oh, Lord, I listen to them. We chat all the time. We don't want this shit happening. However, the rules are funky, and just having the same words in the name doesn't imply a conflict. It's weirdly specific and, to me, magnificently arbitrary. For example, we gave an Israeli character in #207 a very specific name. Turns out one person -- one person in the entire USA -- has that name. Now, would any reasonable judge believe we were implying some nice midwestern housewife was really a Mossad agent? Of course not. The process is designed, as our Legal Human has described it to me: " to protect us from the results of the craziest person in the world getting the craziest jury in the world sitting before the craziest judge in the world." So we changed the name.
There has to be either NO ONE with a crossover, or a NEAR-INFINITE number of cross-overs, so no one of them can claim to be the target of the reference. There are plenty of financial institutions in the Boston area with the word "Fidelity" in their name
@emsworth: Will we see Eliot, Parker and Hardison have to run a con like they did in Bank Shot Job again?
Oh. Oh yes. But something a littel deadlier than a con.
@bluhex: "The Godparents Job" seemed to be mostly oriented at characters (Sophie, and for some reason, Widmark) with no plot to speak of. Are you going to come back to plot-driven episodes like in season 1, or are you sticking to character gags with minimum plot to hold them together?
Pretty much going to stick with the gags.
All joking aside -- and long discussions of the difference between plot and story -- we like to change it up. It's the Science-sical, people.
And after a season opener where a 1.) someone tries to kill a banker who 2.) has evidence that his bank is cahoots with the 3.) Irish mob through a 4.) 30 year old money laundering scheme but now is taking advantage of the 5.) new government bank bailout forcing our team to run 6.) multiple scams, not just on the bad guys but on Nate to entice him back to the job, only to discover that 7.) the villain is not who they think ... well, that's enough story for my brain.
@Aussie Ash: 1.) Will there be any music industry related cons? Having studied music business I can think of about 10 just off the top of my head, and quite a few that have happened to friends. 2.) Whens Eliot going to meet his match, woman wise? My friends and I are dying for that... :-P
1.) Third season willing, there will be a music con. 2.) Mossad. Agent.
@JustJill: 1.) Are there currently any other guest characters we can expect to make a return in Season 2? 2)Also, my friend wants to know if you can give Christian Kane her number.
1.) "... Hello, Nate." 2.) I can't get Kane to return my calls.
@Melissa: We know the show is shooting in Portland now. Has the writing team been moved to Portland too, or do they spend most of their time in LA?
In LA. Most shows that shoot out of town keep their staffs in LA. We send up the writer of the week for each ep, but most shows don't even do that.
@Sammie: where have Eliot's glasses gone this season?
The glasses will return. Eliot uses them in very specific contexts.
@SpicyArcticTaco: Are we going to learn more about good ol' Jimmy Ford? Will we see Parker's bunny? How about Jane, err, I mean Sophie's truth snake?
1.) Ooooooh yes. 2.) Even Hardison has not seen Parker's bunny. 3.) You know ... kind of. Yes.
@Ann: I've heard that casts on other shows wrote back stories for their characters before any footage of their show was shot. Did your cast do the same?
Each actor has their own process. Gina, for example, came in with a detailed backstory for Sophie that we liked better than what we had, and I now treat it as canon. I know Aldis has a backstory for Hardison that's very specific, and nicely enough Nate's character is so in Hutton and myself's Irish Catholic wheelhouse, we're kind of evolving him up together.
@Kevin: if a crowd of concerned parents storm the school because they're tremendously worried about a headmaster change, and an eccentric new headmaster appeared to tout his teaching method *as outlined in his book*, and he references that book several times during his introduction... what's the next thing those parents do? Why, they buy the book and read it.
If they really cared for those children, they wouldn't have them at that heartless school. And remember, rich white people are very susceptible to arguments from authority.
That said, Hardison found an old out-of-print German textbook and performed identity theft on it. He did it through Google books, no less!
All right, its's miserably late and I have typing to do. Thanks, as always for tuning in, and remember -- only THREE MORE EPISODES left in summer Leverage!
@Dylan: i have a question, why does almost all of the characters say "seriously" in their lines? especially Hardison.. is that significant or sumthin? jus treally wonderin.. =)
It's a verbal tic of mine, when wronged by my surly staff. Berg started using it while on set, the actors picked it up, and we wound up scripting it. It's now a show in-joke. What's delightful is that each character has a specific, aggrieved version of the delivery.
@Anonymous: One question - has Sophie always been aware that she's not a great actress (or at least, that other people don't think she is) or is it a recent realization?
She has, at the very least, always believed she was improving, if not actually good. She ain't an idiot, though.
@Ashley: I also missed the flashbacks! Where have they gone?
Off-story joke beats -- first things cut when the schedule gets hairy. We've got a great one coming up in #206, though.
@Steven: My question: how did you manage to get a character named Mark Sanford? And: was that written before this summer?
Sheer blind luck.
@Anna: My question is, how much more Hardison/Parker unresolved sexual tension (on Hardison's part at least) can we expect to see this season? And does it bother you that more fans (or so it seems) are shipping Eliot/Parker?
More fans are shipping Nate/Eliot. Let's be honest here.
Their relationship is quietly percolating. She asked for time, he's going to give it to her. But there is that shot in 208 ...
@susanne: Please can you put Hardison in a dress? If I ask nicely?
I'll ask Aldis.
@Denita: My question this week is about character motivation. Last season, the entire group seemed driven by something, both as individuals and as a team. Heck, so did Sterling. But now, even though they're back together, it feels like something's missing. Like they aren't quite as dedicated to what they're doing or something. They don't feel like a team yet. Is it just me or is that what you've intended?
Hmm, I don't personally see what you're talking about in the stories, but, as far as how it might be pinging you in particular ... it may be that since Nate's drive has changed, the team's drive feels like it's changed. But it hasn't -- their drive is, frankly, to be a family. This is what allows them to do that, without having to deal with their emotions.
@DaveMB: I understand that Star Trek: TOS, for example, had an outside consulting firm that checked all their names very carefully against some (paper?) database to avoid conflicts and potential legal action. Yet in this show you named a Boston-based financial firm "Fidelity" and an exclusive private school "Dalton". Do the lawyers no longer care about such things, or do you just not listen to them?
Oh, Lord, I listen to them. We chat all the time. We don't want this shit happening. However, the rules are funky, and just having the same words in the name doesn't imply a conflict. It's weirdly specific and, to me, magnificently arbitrary. For example, we gave an Israeli character in #207 a very specific name. Turns out one person -- one person in the entire USA -- has that name. Now, would any reasonable judge believe we were implying some nice midwestern housewife was really a Mossad agent? Of course not. The process is designed, as our Legal Human has described it to me: " to protect us from the results of the craziest person in the world getting the craziest jury in the world sitting before the craziest judge in the world." So we changed the name.
There has to be either NO ONE with a crossover, or a NEAR-INFINITE number of cross-overs, so no one of them can claim to be the target of the reference. There are plenty of financial institutions in the Boston area with the word "Fidelity" in their name
@emsworth: Will we see Eliot, Parker and Hardison have to run a con like they did in Bank Shot Job again?
Oh. Oh yes. But something a littel deadlier than a con.
@bluhex: "The Godparents Job" seemed to be mostly oriented at characters (Sophie, and for some reason, Widmark) with no plot to speak of. Are you going to come back to plot-driven episodes like in season 1, or are you sticking to character gags with minimum plot to hold them together?
Pretty much going to stick with the gags.
All joking aside -- and long discussions of the difference between plot and story -- we like to change it up. It's the Science-sical, people.
And after a season opener where a 1.) someone tries to kill a banker who 2.) has evidence that his bank is cahoots with the 3.) Irish mob through a 4.) 30 year old money laundering scheme but now is taking advantage of the 5.) new government bank bailout forcing our team to run 6.) multiple scams, not just on the bad guys but on Nate to entice him back to the job, only to discover that 7.) the villain is not who they think ... well, that's enough story for my brain.
@Aussie Ash: 1.) Will there be any music industry related cons? Having studied music business I can think of about 10 just off the top of my head, and quite a few that have happened to friends. 2.) Whens Eliot going to meet his match, woman wise? My friends and I are dying for that... :-P
1.) Third season willing, there will be a music con. 2.) Mossad. Agent.
@JustJill: 1.) Are there currently any other guest characters we can expect to make a return in Season 2? 2)Also, my friend wants to know if you can give Christian Kane her number.
1.) "... Hello, Nate." 2.) I can't get Kane to return my calls.
@Melissa: We know the show is shooting in Portland now. Has the writing team been moved to Portland too, or do they spend most of their time in LA?
In LA. Most shows that shoot out of town keep their staffs in LA. We send up the writer of the week for each ep, but most shows don't even do that.
@Sammie: where have Eliot's glasses gone this season?
The glasses will return. Eliot uses them in very specific contexts.
@SpicyArcticTaco: Are we going to learn more about good ol' Jimmy Ford? Will we see Parker's bunny? How about Jane, err, I mean Sophie's truth snake?
1.) Ooooooh yes. 2.) Even Hardison has not seen Parker's bunny. 3.) You know ... kind of. Yes.
@Ann: I've heard that casts on other shows wrote back stories for their characters before any footage of their show was shot. Did your cast do the same?
Each actor has their own process. Gina, for example, came in with a detailed backstory for Sophie that we liked better than what we had, and I now treat it as canon. I know Aldis has a backstory for Hardison that's very specific, and nicely enough Nate's character is so in Hutton and myself's Irish Catholic wheelhouse, we're kind of evolving him up together.
@Kevin: if a crowd of concerned parents storm the school because they're tremendously worried about a headmaster change, and an eccentric new headmaster appeared to tout his teaching method *as outlined in his book*, and he references that book several times during his introduction... what's the next thing those parents do? Why, they buy the book and read it.
If they really cared for those children, they wouldn't have them at that heartless school. And remember, rich white people are very susceptible to arguments from authority.
That said, Hardison found an old out-of-print German textbook and performed identity theft on it. He did it through Google books, no less!
All right, its's miserably late and I have typing to do. Thanks, as always for tuning in, and remember -- only THREE MORE EPISODES left in summer Leverage!
Monday, August 10, 2009
I Do Love MAD MEN ...
... I mean, it is utter genius. Probably my favorite show on television. Deserves every award it wins, I wait with bated breath for the 3rd season return, etc.
But this is adorable:
Please. PLEASE constrain me with $2.8 million dollars an episode.
In the Comments, your favorite Mad Men moment. I'll put mine in the comments to avoid spoilers up here.
But this is adorable:
All in all, that’s a lot to pack into a mere 47 minutes of TV, one night a week—astonishing, really, considering that each episode of Mad Men, with its scrupulous period detail, is shot in just seven days on a budget that, at an average $2.8 million an episode this season, even a lot of indie-film producers would scoff at.
,,,“I’m of the persuasion that budget contraints are very, very good for creativity. I think people having unlimited amounts of money makes you really lazy. And I will be quoted on that, believe it or not.” The speaker turning his back on decades of Hollywood wisdom was Matthew Weiner, 44, the auteur behind Mad Men ...
Please. PLEASE constrain me with $2.8 million dollars an episode.
In the Comments, your favorite Mad Men moment. I'll put mine in the comments to avoid spoilers up here.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Favorite Hughes Film
Some Kind of Wonderful, and I'm not going to explain why. Yours in the Comments.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Hah ha, We are Satirists! Harmless Satirists!
Um, I would like to state for the record that "Castleman Security" in ep #102 of Leverage was in no way, shape or form meant to represent Blackwater or any employees or board members of that company.
Please, please do not shoot us in the face. Allegedly.
Please, please do not shoot us in the face. Allegedly.
Question Post for LEVERAGE #204 "The Fairy Godparents Job"
Frakes. Musical. For those of you worried that the season is getting too dark, well ...
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Questions in the Comments, please.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Questions in the Comments, please.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
LEVERAGE #203 "The Order 23 Job" Post-game
"It was the episode where they convinced the guy there was a nuclear war," Downey said, last year before we even started.
"They let him see the world through a periscope. I'm not sure we can do the periscope gag."
And so, we scaled down the End of the World to something a little more manageable. Add a dash of Derren Brown subliminally programming a mall full of people, add some stories of hypnosis raising burn blisters and affinity fraud ... and we had our classic Mission Impossible episode. I mean, it's not the classic "secret Third Reich sub with the weird glass tube in the middle, built on a set of gimbals in a warehouse" gambit, but it ain't bad.
I have to admit, this production had one of the odder moments in my career. I sat next to Rod Hardy, the director, as he auditioned actors for the Security Guard. "Pardon me," he would say, with painful courtesy, "but would you mind taking your shirt off?"
A half-dozen skinny guys, one after another, stripping for their shower scene. Not the shower scene auditions I was told about when I got into this Hollywood producer scam.
Double character beats in this one. The Nate one is a followup of his comment in "The 12 Step Job" that maybe he was more of a bastard sober. A sober Nate Ford is still obsessive, brilliant, and righteous -- and now forced to live with himself 24/7. "We all trade one addiction for another," Nate said in the season opener. And he's not exactly well-adjusted enough to make the most ... therapeutically sound choices when it comes to his new life choices. (I refuse to say "recovery", by the way)
The Eliot story isn't meant to imply anything about his backstory. Or, if it does, I would caution you into laying the most literal interpretation onto the story. That character's seen a lot of nasty things in his life, and certain things tweak him more strongly than others. But it's a fair bit more complicated than the straight ahead read ...
I do have to admit, the first time we saw the cut, with the nice ending, as everyone went "Awwww", I turned to Dean and said "Wow, Eliot is plainly going to go in there and kill that dude."
But that's probably just me.
Right, what's in the mailbag?
@MichaelClear: What was the deal with "Catwoman"?
Oh, you kids.
@Alan Scott: Man, I'm from the place where this episode was set, and it's not really like that at all.
It absolutely is. You're just too blind to see it.
@ChrisAyers: Why would Hardison make the code for "all's well" odd numbered Treks & bad stuff even numbered Treks? Seems counterintuitive.
His logic was that all the odd-numbered ones should be ignored, therefore a warning should be ones you pay attention to. Also, Wrath o'Khan joke.
@briddle: Did I miss something? Why was Hardison snagging the marshal's keys in the first place?
He was going to try to get some background on them to be able to manipulate them easier. You didn't miss anything.
@Nicole: It seemed like there were a few geeky nods at the beginning of the episode... I particularly liked Parker putting the drops of drugs down a thread. Were you calling on something you pulled from actual research, or was that a nod toward Gross Point Blank?
I think both we and Grosse Point Blanke were homaging You Only Live Twice.
@Caitlin: Anyway, I was wondering if we are going to get more scenes of Eliot being the protector of kids. I loved the scene of him with Randy in the hospital, I thought it was absolutely adorable! Eliot is a teddy bear deep down! And...just how sadistic is Nate going to get this season and will Sophie continue to find it attractive?
Eliot as a teddy bear? No. But Chris is both great with kids, and works well with kid actors (kudos to our guest star for this week, he was really fantastic). And kids basically treat Chris like Batman.
@Becky: Do you guys decide a theme for picking the various aliases used in an episode? I have this image in my head of you putting suggestions in a hat and pulling one out. 'And this week we'll be using.... science fiction authors!'
The aliases -- Hardison's creations -- always follow the theme of the con. The one exception is in Ep #207, where they fit the characters that the, um, characters have chosen to play.
@NG: the aliases of the police, Greg Michaels and Ted Crichton. A deliberate nod to Michael Crichton and The Andromeda Strain?
Such as that. Thanks, NG.
@Jesse Savage: Are there any plans for Leverage to air in Canada? Pretty please? Or are we just going to have to rely on DVDs?
Seeing as Canadian television seems to be in freefall, I'm thinking it will be DVD's for now. Not a lot of motivation to pay foreign license fees. So, unless someone wants to start harassing The Movie Channel ...
@marga: nate mentioned the team members playing multiple parts this scam... might we see a story where there simply aren't enough of them to efficiently pull it off? or conversely, could there be a scam that doesn't require everyone and maybe someone feels left out?
They tend to fit the scam to their numbers. Between Nate and Sophie they know just about every variation of every scam, and they can always dial up or down. Considering the degree of difficulty on their jobs, I doubt they'll have a free hand any time soon.
@Anonymous: Miss the conference room scenes and the development of the con that happens there. Will we see a return of this part of the team's process?
As of #204, and for the rest of the Season. Just a weird confluence of episodes up front. Hardison didn't put all that neat stuff in Nate's apartment for no reason.
@jarodrussel: ... In this episode, [Parker] spends a lot of the time having Nate explain how this con worked. Is Parker going to become something of a sponge, soaking up tricks and skills from the rest of the team, expanding her skills out from Thief to Mastermind?
Parker has a Destiny. This is all part of the Path.
@BardicLady: does Parker drink alcohol? Also, how did Madoff-redux get a taser through security and the possibility of an MRI?
a.) Yes, but oddly it doesn't seem to affect her. b.) It came off the naked Security Guard's belt.
@CallieMac: Why did Parker rattle the duct - was it to keep him from picking up the drink? Also, what was up with the look between Hardison and Eliot when Parker said nurses don't wear skirts and white hose anymore?
a.) Yes. b.) I am not going to explain why men would be disappointed Parker would not wind up wearing the white nurse's uniform.
@I must confess to finding the subplot with Eliot and the kid to be pointless, distracting, unrealistic (the U.S. Marshal Service can do precisely nothing about an abused child), and cliched up the kazoo. This show is usually better than that.
Ahhh, Keith my friend, the Marshall is, as are most law enforcement officials, a mandated reporter. But more importantly, he was an authority figure outside the local law enforcement system, the system Randy feared would not respond to his complaints. He was more there for emotional support, to get the boy to Social Services, and to basically scare the Dad with a Bigger Badge to keep him from interfering.
It's not hard to find stories of abuse victims who did not report their abusers because of connections with local law enforcement. Also, see DaveMB in the Comments of the last post for some good references.
@Confessions of a Con Medic: Who would come out on top in a war of wits between the Leverage crew vs Michael Westin? (Burn notice)
Dead tie. The problem is, Michael doesn't really have an exploitable weakness for the con hook to set. Except his brother. Who we would just kill. As a favor.
@Micah: What happens when they realize that the nurse being zapped on the security footage doesn't actually work at the hospital, or is that another one of those handwavy go-with-it-we-got-the-bad-guy things?
Depends how badly the local law enforcement wants to clean up the loose ends on the escape and recapture of a con man who stripped the local community bare.
@Brad: Did anyone else keep thinking of the Silent Hill games in a lot of the eighth-floor sequences? Was that deliberate, or just an echo? And was there any particular reason we never saw our wronged Armenian fellow again after the first three minutes? Most episodes would at least have him getting the money, if the past is a good guide. Or was that deliberately underlining Nate's increasing emotional distance?
a.) I think that's just a sign of the universal creepinesss of abandoned hospitals b.) Cut for time, although I like the "Nate's increasing emotional distance" bit enough, I'll hereby make it canon.
@Save-vs-DM: Are you guys using digital effects to change words on buildings and stuff?
Indeed we are. One of the most common jobs of our FX department now, as Portland's cooperation with the production allows us to be outside on location much more often than in LA.
@HowieC: My question is simple - who is the better thief: Parker or John Rogers? The drug down the filiment was a direct swipe from James Bond (You Only Live Twice). The convincing the mark that he has a fatal disease in order to give up the $ - vintage Mission Impossible
Ho-mage. The word we use is ho-mage.
@Improper Bostonian: We don't speak "that" nasally and we definitely don't sound like Cliff Claven on Cheers. Hell, give me a call and you'll hear what we really sound like.
All our effort went into duplicating the Rev-eah Claw. The hair did all the work.
@Alexandra: My question for this week: When the staff breaks episodes, how much about the traits of our once-off characters gets decided in the writers room? Do y'all just say, "the mark is a hedge fund manager," and send the writer off to make up everything else about him?
We break those bad guys pretty thoroughly in the writers room, as their flaws are our paths of attack. The Evil Speech of Evil came about specifically because we spend so much time trying to come up with their perfectly justified worldview. You don't really understand an antagonist until you understand why he's a protagonist in his own version of the world.
SueN: Say, any chance in future y'all could go after an oil company? 'Cause hubby's on his way now to a job fair since those bastards laid off every oil man in our area just to show the administration they're not going down without a fight.
Hmm, we don't have an oil company on the list. Hmmmmmmm ...
@Ann: know you have been saying that Nathan is not s nice guy. But were not some of his issues resolved last season. I see not nice, but angry and bitter?? When he quit the booze did he lose his heart too?
He lost his heart when his son died. Right now, he hasn't quite figured out what's supposed to go in that hole. Or, rather, that Nate Ford is dead. Who's walking around in that body, and is Nate even self-aware enough to understand that question?
@Monika: [Eliot]'s not turning into a soft cotton ball in the course of three or four episodes, right? We'll see more banter and snark and bad mood?
The man is never funnier than when he's annoyed. No worries. (Although I'm not sure I'd say "About to throw a guy over a railing" qualifies as 'soft'.)
@Kerri: How old is Parker supposed to be?
Mid-twenties, Hardison's age.
@Susanne: Will there ever be any gay in Leverage? Besides that small spur of the moment thing in The 12 Step Job we haven't seen anything. Will there be a gay client or crook? Or possibly one of the team playing a gay part for a con? Cause I guess it's too late to have one of them come out as gay for real unfortunately...
You know, we've developed a couple gay characters, but they happened to be in episodes that never hit the air (we throw out about three or four storylines a year on the way to shooting). We'll get there. And, of course, there's the backstory on Sophie and Jeri Ryan's charac --
@nobodez: Oh, and WTF was up with the car the mark stole near the end? Who puts their keys above the visor?
That was the assassin's car. Eliot planted it in the bad guy's path. Clarifying flashback cut for time.
@Rob: how the hell does an aggrieved victim get a pistol into a courtroom these days?
Metal detectors weren't maintained-- actually a plot point at one time, to help tip why Eddie would be sure his money would be safe in the courthouse. It was in such bad shape, he knew the odds of maintenance exposing his booty would be low. Cut for time.
@CindyD: My questions is didn't Chris [Downey] used to actually practice law before becoming the fabulous Leverage writer he is today? ;-)
Hence the mens rea run, yes. He actually defended our villains. He also runs our stories by his friends still in NYC law, a habit that gave us a great moment last year when one of his US prosecutor friends said, essentially, "Holy shit. That would work ..."
@Shelley: My question: Do you know how you're going to work around Gina's pregnancy? I don't see her hiding behind folders and other props (though she was hugging that pillow last week, hmmm....) Would you actually use the pregnancy as part of a con?
We are not having a pregnant woman run away from explosions. No, we have a plan ...
@Terri: Do the actors ever ad-lib during filming? Sometimes the bickering between the characters (particularly Eliot and Hardison with the "cowboy with self esteem issues") makes it seem like some of the stuff is unscripted. So is ad-libbing allowed and if it is, how much freedom are the actors given?
The actors are quite scrupulous about giving us the scripted material, particularly because the show is so plot-heavy. That said, there's a lot of improv-ing, and we use quite a bit of it. That particular line was written, if I remember correctly.
@Rahyne: What is Sterling's position/title now in IYS? And now a comment - I am hoping fervently that Sterling doesn't actually become a bad guy. Keep him on the side of the law and the team's nemesis.
He has a VP title, but he's essentially head of all investigative services worldwide (Nate's old job), a job he is very hands-on with. And Sterling is never, ever a bad guy. He's not above using bad guys ...
@sjrSpike:Totally dating myself -- Anyone else remember 'Tales of the Gold Monkey'?
No. And that has nothing to do with Eliot's stolen monkey. At all. Ahem.
@ThomasD: My wife, who is a neuroscientist, usually winces whenever there's brain science on a fiction television show. However, she didn't seem to think that Nate's discussion of doing a end run around the executive portion of the brain was too bad especially considering that his character isn't really a doctor. She said it was "an interesting hypothesis" ... Good on you for getting the amygdala right.
And we only had to dissect three interns to master the concept ...
Good questions, all. Thanks for the feedback, and I look forward to your thoughts on #204. 'til then, sleep tight.
"They let him see the world through a periscope. I'm not sure we can do the periscope gag."
And so, we scaled down the End of the World to something a little more manageable. Add a dash of Derren Brown subliminally programming a mall full of people, add some stories of hypnosis raising burn blisters and affinity fraud ... and we had our classic Mission Impossible episode. I mean, it's not the classic "secret Third Reich sub with the weird glass tube in the middle, built on a set of gimbals in a warehouse" gambit, but it ain't bad.
I have to admit, this production had one of the odder moments in my career. I sat next to Rod Hardy, the director, as he auditioned actors for the Security Guard. "Pardon me," he would say, with painful courtesy, "but would you mind taking your shirt off?"
A half-dozen skinny guys, one after another, stripping for their shower scene. Not the shower scene auditions I was told about when I got into this Hollywood producer scam.
Double character beats in this one. The Nate one is a followup of his comment in "The 12 Step Job" that maybe he was more of a bastard sober. A sober Nate Ford is still obsessive, brilliant, and righteous -- and now forced to live with himself 24/7. "We all trade one addiction for another," Nate said in the season opener. And he's not exactly well-adjusted enough to make the most ... therapeutically sound choices when it comes to his new life choices. (I refuse to say "recovery", by the way)
The Eliot story isn't meant to imply anything about his backstory. Or, if it does, I would caution you into laying the most literal interpretation onto the story. That character's seen a lot of nasty things in his life, and certain things tweak him more strongly than others. But it's a fair bit more complicated than the straight ahead read ...
I do have to admit, the first time we saw the cut, with the nice ending, as everyone went "Awwww", I turned to Dean and said "Wow, Eliot is plainly going to go in there and kill that dude."
But that's probably just me.
Right, what's in the mailbag?
@MichaelClear: What was the deal with "Catwoman"?
Oh, you kids.
@Alan Scott: Man, I'm from the place where this episode was set, and it's not really like that at all.
It absolutely is. You're just too blind to see it.
@ChrisAyers: Why would Hardison make the code for "all's well" odd numbered Treks & bad stuff even numbered Treks? Seems counterintuitive.
His logic was that all the odd-numbered ones should be ignored, therefore a warning should be ones you pay attention to. Also, Wrath o'Khan joke.
@briddle: Did I miss something? Why was Hardison snagging the marshal's keys in the first place?
He was going to try to get some background on them to be able to manipulate them easier. You didn't miss anything.
@Nicole: It seemed like there were a few geeky nods at the beginning of the episode... I particularly liked Parker putting the drops of drugs down a thread. Were you calling on something you pulled from actual research, or was that a nod toward Gross Point Blank?
I think both we and Grosse Point Blanke were homaging You Only Live Twice.
@Caitlin: Anyway, I was wondering if we are going to get more scenes of Eliot being the protector of kids. I loved the scene of him with Randy in the hospital, I thought it was absolutely adorable! Eliot is a teddy bear deep down! And...just how sadistic is Nate going to get this season and will Sophie continue to find it attractive?
Eliot as a teddy bear? No. But Chris is both great with kids, and works well with kid actors (kudos to our guest star for this week, he was really fantastic). And kids basically treat Chris like Batman.
@Becky: Do you guys decide a theme for picking the various aliases used in an episode? I have this image in my head of you putting suggestions in a hat and pulling one out. 'And this week we'll be using.... science fiction authors!'
The aliases -- Hardison's creations -- always follow the theme of the con. The one exception is in Ep #207, where they fit the characters that the, um, characters have chosen to play.
@NG: the aliases of the police, Greg Michaels and Ted Crichton. A deliberate nod to Michael Crichton and The Andromeda Strain?
Such as that. Thanks, NG.
@Jesse Savage: Are there any plans for Leverage to air in Canada? Pretty please? Or are we just going to have to rely on DVDs?
Seeing as Canadian television seems to be in freefall, I'm thinking it will be DVD's for now. Not a lot of motivation to pay foreign license fees. So, unless someone wants to start harassing The Movie Channel ...
@marga: nate mentioned the team members playing multiple parts this scam... might we see a story where there simply aren't enough of them to efficiently pull it off? or conversely, could there be a scam that doesn't require everyone and maybe someone feels left out?
They tend to fit the scam to their numbers. Between Nate and Sophie they know just about every variation of every scam, and they can always dial up or down. Considering the degree of difficulty on their jobs, I doubt they'll have a free hand any time soon.
@Anonymous: Miss the conference room scenes and the development of the con that happens there. Will we see a return of this part of the team's process?
As of #204, and for the rest of the Season. Just a weird confluence of episodes up front. Hardison didn't put all that neat stuff in Nate's apartment for no reason.
@jarodrussel: ... In this episode, [Parker] spends a lot of the time having Nate explain how this con worked. Is Parker going to become something of a sponge, soaking up tricks and skills from the rest of the team, expanding her skills out from Thief to Mastermind?
Parker has a Destiny. This is all part of the Path.
@BardicLady: does Parker drink alcohol? Also, how did Madoff-redux get a taser through security and the possibility of an MRI?
a.) Yes, but oddly it doesn't seem to affect her. b.) It came off the naked Security Guard's belt.
@CallieMac: Why did Parker rattle the duct - was it to keep him from picking up the drink? Also, what was up with the look between Hardison and Eliot when Parker said nurses don't wear skirts and white hose anymore?
a.) Yes. b.) I am not going to explain why men would be disappointed Parker would not wind up wearing the white nurse's uniform.
@I must confess to finding the subplot with Eliot and the kid to be pointless, distracting, unrealistic (the U.S. Marshal Service can do precisely nothing about an abused child), and cliched up the kazoo. This show is usually better than that.
Ahhh, Keith my friend, the Marshall is, as are most law enforcement officials, a mandated reporter. But more importantly, he was an authority figure outside the local law enforcement system, the system Randy feared would not respond to his complaints. He was more there for emotional support, to get the boy to Social Services, and to basically scare the Dad with a Bigger Badge to keep him from interfering.
It's not hard to find stories of abuse victims who did not report their abusers because of connections with local law enforcement. Also, see DaveMB in the Comments of the last post for some good references.
@Confessions of a Con Medic: Who would come out on top in a war of wits between the Leverage crew vs Michael Westin? (Burn notice)
Dead tie. The problem is, Michael doesn't really have an exploitable weakness for the con hook to set. Except his brother. Who we would just kill. As a favor.
@Micah: What happens when they realize that the nurse being zapped on the security footage doesn't actually work at the hospital, or is that another one of those handwavy go-with-it-we-got-the-bad-guy things?
Depends how badly the local law enforcement wants to clean up the loose ends on the escape and recapture of a con man who stripped the local community bare.
@Brad: Did anyone else keep thinking of the Silent Hill games in a lot of the eighth-floor sequences? Was that deliberate, or just an echo? And was there any particular reason we never saw our wronged Armenian fellow again after the first three minutes? Most episodes would at least have him getting the money, if the past is a good guide. Or was that deliberately underlining Nate's increasing emotional distance?
a.) I think that's just a sign of the universal creepinesss of abandoned hospitals b.) Cut for time, although I like the "Nate's increasing emotional distance" bit enough, I'll hereby make it canon.
@Save-vs-DM: Are you guys using digital effects to change words on buildings and stuff?
Indeed we are. One of the most common jobs of our FX department now, as Portland's cooperation with the production allows us to be outside on location much more often than in LA.
@HowieC: My question is simple - who is the better thief: Parker or John Rogers? The drug down the filiment was a direct swipe from James Bond (You Only Live Twice). The convincing the mark that he has a fatal disease in order to give up the $ - vintage Mission Impossible
Ho-mage. The word we use is ho-mage.
@Improper Bostonian: We don't speak "that" nasally and we definitely don't sound like Cliff Claven on Cheers. Hell, give me a call and you'll hear what we really sound like.
All our effort went into duplicating the Rev-eah Claw. The hair did all the work.
@Alexandra: My question for this week: When the staff breaks episodes, how much about the traits of our once-off characters gets decided in the writers room? Do y'all just say, "the mark is a hedge fund manager," and send the writer off to make up everything else about him?
We break those bad guys pretty thoroughly in the writers room, as their flaws are our paths of attack. The Evil Speech of Evil came about specifically because we spend so much time trying to come up with their perfectly justified worldview. You don't really understand an antagonist until you understand why he's a protagonist in his own version of the world.
SueN: Say, any chance in future y'all could go after an oil company? 'Cause hubby's on his way now to a job fair since those bastards laid off every oil man in our area just to show the administration they're not going down without a fight.
Hmm, we don't have an oil company on the list. Hmmmmmmm ...
@Ann: know you have been saying that Nathan is not s nice guy. But were not some of his issues resolved last season. I see not nice, but angry and bitter?? When he quit the booze did he lose his heart too?
He lost his heart when his son died. Right now, he hasn't quite figured out what's supposed to go in that hole. Or, rather, that Nate Ford is dead. Who's walking around in that body, and is Nate even self-aware enough to understand that question?
@Monika: [Eliot]'s not turning into a soft cotton ball in the course of three or four episodes, right? We'll see more banter and snark and bad mood?
The man is never funnier than when he's annoyed. No worries. (Although I'm not sure I'd say "About to throw a guy over a railing" qualifies as 'soft'.)
@Kerri: How old is Parker supposed to be?
Mid-twenties, Hardison's age.
@Susanne: Will there ever be any gay in Leverage? Besides that small spur of the moment thing in The 12 Step Job we haven't seen anything. Will there be a gay client or crook? Or possibly one of the team playing a gay part for a con? Cause I guess it's too late to have one of them come out as gay for real unfortunately...
You know, we've developed a couple gay characters, but they happened to be in episodes that never hit the air (we throw out about three or four storylines a year on the way to shooting). We'll get there. And, of course, there's the backstory on Sophie and Jeri Ryan's charac --
@nobodez: Oh, and WTF was up with the car the mark stole near the end? Who puts their keys above the visor?
That was the assassin's car. Eliot planted it in the bad guy's path. Clarifying flashback cut for time.
@Rob: how the hell does an aggrieved victim get a pistol into a courtroom these days?
Metal detectors weren't maintained-- actually a plot point at one time, to help tip why Eddie would be sure his money would be safe in the courthouse. It was in such bad shape, he knew the odds of maintenance exposing his booty would be low. Cut for time.
@CindyD: My questions is didn't Chris [Downey] used to actually practice law before becoming the fabulous Leverage writer he is today? ;-)
Hence the mens rea run, yes. He actually defended our villains. He also runs our stories by his friends still in NYC law, a habit that gave us a great moment last year when one of his US prosecutor friends said, essentially, "Holy shit. That would work ..."
@Shelley: My question: Do you know how you're going to work around Gina's pregnancy? I don't see her hiding behind folders and other props (though she was hugging that pillow last week, hmmm....) Would you actually use the pregnancy as part of a con?
We are not having a pregnant woman run away from explosions. No, we have a plan ...
@Terri: Do the actors ever ad-lib during filming? Sometimes the bickering between the characters (particularly Eliot and Hardison with the "cowboy with self esteem issues") makes it seem like some of the stuff is unscripted. So is ad-libbing allowed and if it is, how much freedom are the actors given?
The actors are quite scrupulous about giving us the scripted material, particularly because the show is so plot-heavy. That said, there's a lot of improv-ing, and we use quite a bit of it. That particular line was written, if I remember correctly.
@Rahyne: What is Sterling's position/title now in IYS? And now a comment - I am hoping fervently that Sterling doesn't actually become a bad guy. Keep him on the side of the law and the team's nemesis.
He has a VP title, but he's essentially head of all investigative services worldwide (Nate's old job), a job he is very hands-on with. And Sterling is never, ever a bad guy. He's not above using bad guys ...
@sjrSpike:Totally dating myself -- Anyone else remember 'Tales of the Gold Monkey'?
No. And that has nothing to do with Eliot's stolen monkey. At all. Ahem.
@ThomasD: My wife, who is a neuroscientist, usually winces whenever there's brain science on a fiction television show. However, she didn't seem to think that Nate's discussion of doing a end run around the executive portion of the brain was too bad especially considering that his character isn't really a doctor. She said it was "an interesting hypothesis" ... Good on you for getting the amygdala right.
And we only had to dissect three interns to master the concept ...
Good questions, all. Thanks for the feedback, and I look forward to your thoughts on #204. 'til then, sleep tight.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Remember When I Said Netflix Will Win?
Streaming on iPhone means streaming on Apple Tablet, and all Apple Tablet knock-offs.
We better figure out how to monetize this. Now.
We better figure out how to monetize this. Now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)