For those of you who remember that I was going to direct a movie two years ago:
Exec: We're happy with the script, your budget looks fine --
John: I had two line producers run it for me separately, they came back with estimates within fifty grand of each other ...
Exec: We just need to find a lead.
John: James Purefoy.
Exec: Who?
John: James Purefoy. He flew himself in to audition. He tore the roof off the joint. Seriously, he was so good we just sat quietly for a few minutes after he left.
Exec: He's not a movie star.
John: No, he is a movie star who just hasn't been in any movies yet. We can be his first. We will look like geniuses. And he will rip it up.
Exec: We need to find a movie star who won't cost a lot.
John: James. Purefoy.
Exec: Nah. Wonder what Macavoy's doing?
John: He just did Wanted with Angelina FUCKING Jolie, he is not going to hang out in Montreal with me for a month doing a two-hander low-budget heist flick. He. Will. Not. Take. This. Job.
Exec: We'll send it to Macavoy.
Full size here.
NOTE: I'm sorry, some people are misunderstanding. SOLOMON KANE is not my movie. SOLOMON KANE is the movie Purefoy went on to do right after my studio passed on him. My movie (a remake of Adieu L'ami) laid down and died when we couldn't get a lead actor at the price the studio would pay.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Netflix Friday #5: RED ROCK WEST
Before he slammed onto the scene with The Last Seduction, director John Dahl gave us the surreal little thriller Red Rock West. Both are late entries in the 80's/90's neo-noir wave, but while Seduction has a lot going for it -- Linda Fiorentio's legs and a surprising villain turn by Bill Pullman -- I'd argue Red Rock is the more interesting film.
Seduction, after all, plays pretty straight by noir standards. And granted Red Rock begins cleanly enough: Nicolas Cage drifts into a small desert town and finds himself in a classic noir setup. Murder for hire, mistaken identities, you know the drill. But after that familiar opening refrain, Red Rock's story roams like a sax solo around a familiar standard melody. From murderous to openly comedic to David Lynch and back again ... I'm sure the Germans have a word for "quirky, yet evoking genuine dread". Assume I used it here.
The real thrill is watching J.T. Walsh. Dennis Hopper chews scenery and Cage, well, he's busy perfecting the genial loser persona that would keep him employed for a decade. Meanwhile Walsh is calmly, malevolently centering every scene he's in. He wields a ... dark gravity. The mistake casting directors made with him later was in playing him as venal, or mad. Walsh is best here and in, say, The Grifters, where he is obviously, terribly sane. His death just five years after this movie was a real loss.
It's odd to see this flick sitting in a pack of movies like The Grifters and Last Seduction and the criminally under-rated One False Move. But while I love all of those movies for their momentum, I enjoy Red Rock precisely for its refusal to take itself too seriously. To borrow a gaming term, it's a beer and pretzels noir. Perfect for a casual Sunday download, and streaming now -- until November 30th -- on Netflix.
Seduction, after all, plays pretty straight by noir standards. And granted Red Rock begins cleanly enough: Nicolas Cage drifts into a small desert town and finds himself in a classic noir setup. Murder for hire, mistaken identities, you know the drill. But after that familiar opening refrain, Red Rock's story roams like a sax solo around a familiar standard melody. From murderous to openly comedic to David Lynch and back again ... I'm sure the Germans have a word for "quirky, yet evoking genuine dread". Assume I used it here.
The real thrill is watching J.T. Walsh. Dennis Hopper chews scenery and Cage, well, he's busy perfecting the genial loser persona that would keep him employed for a decade. Meanwhile Walsh is calmly, malevolently centering every scene he's in. He wields a ... dark gravity. The mistake casting directors made with him later was in playing him as venal, or mad. Walsh is best here and in, say, The Grifters, where he is obviously, terribly sane. His death just five years after this movie was a real loss.
It's odd to see this flick sitting in a pack of movies like The Grifters and Last Seduction and the criminally under-rated One False Move. But while I love all of those movies for their momentum, I enjoy Red Rock precisely for its refusal to take itself too seriously. To borrow a gaming term, it's a beer and pretzels noir. Perfect for a casual Sunday download, and streaming now -- until November 30th -- on Netflix.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
STARDUST
Wow, the last 15 minutes is just %$#@# AMAZING, isn't it?
Seriously, best swordfight/chandelier/true love rescue in ... I don't know how long. Plus, Mark Strong bonus points.
(I know, I know, took me long enough.)
Seriously, best swordfight/chandelier/true love rescue in ... I don't know how long. Plus, Mark Strong bonus points.
(I know, I know, took me long enough.)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Netflix Friday #4: THE KING OF KONG
Saying the world can seem both very large and very small is hackneyed; however, I believe we've entered a period of time when those two conditions are interdependent.
This is a discussion we have in new media all the time -- who is famous, and what use is fame now? Paul F. Tomkins (thanks Wil) is a fine comic and well-known, but I wouldn't call him famous. And yet, he manages to get enough people in major cities to pledge to see his shows that he can make a living travelling from fan-cluster to fan-cluster across North America, summoned by people's need to see him perform. He has the respect and appreciation of a large enough group of people to fill his perceptual horizon. Does anyone need more? Is it even possible to rationaly understand what more is? Is that why famous people go mad?
I'm getting to the movie, I promise.
So we have Steve Weibe, an average guy who takes to practicing Donkey Kong after he's laid off. Anyone who's spent any time hacking away at video games can understand the impetus -- you spend time, you attain a goal, and the goals come at intervals short enough to reinforce the adrenal hit. I've occassionally floated outside myself while playing a video game at 4am, asking "what are you doing?", and getting the answer "Not failing to solve that Act Two problem."
Weibe gets good enough to consider going for the world record. He needs a damn win, in a way that we all understand.
That's when we go down the rabbit hole. That's when we meet Billy Mitchell, the reigning champion of that particular 80's arcade game (among others). While Weibe comes across as a somewhat obsessed hobbyist, a character all we geeks count among our friends, Mitchell has parlayed mastery --
-- I want to back up and take a run at this. Mitchell has parlayed mastery of an thirty-year old arcade game into a business empire that has nothing to do with that arcade game. A small empire, but one that fills his perceptual horizon. He has used that arcade game world record to fuel his own confidence, his own drive, his own success. That record may only be acknowledged by a small world, but its power within that world gives Billy Mitchell the lodestone he needs to survive and thrive in a big world where others become lost. Every morning, he wakes up "Billy Mitchell, world record holder in Donkey Kong", and that sustains him with a fierce power that would shame the faith of a Jesuit priest. In a world of losers, the lost and the damned, Billy Mitchell is a winner.
And Steve FUCKING Weibe is not going to take that from him.
You know what that is? That is the recipe for great. goddam. drama.
The relentless grind of small indignities. The cumulative blessings of small victories. Honor, cheating, ego, sacrifice, suspense ... The King of Kong is available for your Netflix Streaming enjoyment even as we speak.
This is a discussion we have in new media all the time -- who is famous, and what use is fame now? Paul F. Tomkins (thanks Wil) is a fine comic and well-known, but I wouldn't call him famous. And yet, he manages to get enough people in major cities to pledge to see his shows that he can make a living travelling from fan-cluster to fan-cluster across North America, summoned by people's need to see him perform. He has the respect and appreciation of a large enough group of people to fill his perceptual horizon. Does anyone need more? Is it even possible to rationaly understand what more is? Is that why famous people go mad?
I'm getting to the movie, I promise.
So we have Steve Weibe, an average guy who takes to practicing Donkey Kong after he's laid off. Anyone who's spent any time hacking away at video games can understand the impetus -- you spend time, you attain a goal, and the goals come at intervals short enough to reinforce the adrenal hit. I've occassionally floated outside myself while playing a video game at 4am, asking "what are you doing?", and getting the answer "Not failing to solve that Act Two problem."
Weibe gets good enough to consider going for the world record. He needs a damn win, in a way that we all understand.
That's when we go down the rabbit hole. That's when we meet Billy Mitchell, the reigning champion of that particular 80's arcade game (among others). While Weibe comes across as a somewhat obsessed hobbyist, a character all we geeks count among our friends, Mitchell has parlayed mastery --
-- I want to back up and take a run at this. Mitchell has parlayed mastery of an thirty-year old arcade game into a business empire that has nothing to do with that arcade game. A small empire, but one that fills his perceptual horizon. He has used that arcade game world record to fuel his own confidence, his own drive, his own success. That record may only be acknowledged by a small world, but its power within that world gives Billy Mitchell the lodestone he needs to survive and thrive in a big world where others become lost. Every morning, he wakes up "Billy Mitchell, world record holder in Donkey Kong", and that sustains him with a fierce power that would shame the faith of a Jesuit priest. In a world of losers, the lost and the damned, Billy Mitchell is a winner.
And Steve FUCKING Weibe is not going to take that from him.
You know what that is? That is the recipe for great. goddam. drama.
The relentless grind of small indignities. The cumulative blessings of small victories. Honor, cheating, ego, sacrifice, suspense ... The King of Kong is available for your Netflix Streaming enjoyment even as we speak.
Percy Jackson trailer
Seriously, if I were 12, this would have melted my brain. I love this trailer.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
kfmonkey1
Hey, that spiffier Gamertag is available. If you're interested in the occasional showdown, switch over to kfmonkey1 from levrunner1.
Fine, Fine, I'll Comment
I have a lovely show on right now, and although the whole GF thing was a personal heartbreak, I wish the new guy all the luck in the world and many, many residual checks for Warren with which he can buy replacement robot parts for his ailing meat-being.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Ephemera 2009 (11): L4D2-sday
Lazy tab-dumping, because I got things to kill.
-- Somewhere in heaven, PT Barnum looks down on Sarah Palin and sheds a single proud tear.
-- I can't believe I yet again missed NaNoWriMo. The Doomed Pulp Novel remains unfinished. You know, when you look at what Wil's doing with his latest book, I am tempted to go just online and POD with it. Not like the odds favor me selling any more in bookstores than online. Nicely enough, other people continue to do my conceptual work for me -- although not all of the novel occurs in flooded New York. (h/t i09)
-- I created a public Xbox 360 ID. Add levrunner1 to your friends list, and if I pop up, it's for multiplayer zombie slaughtering goodness. Or M:tG. And yes, that is a monocle.
-- Scenes From An Alternate Universe Where The Beatles Accepted Lorne Michaels’ Generous Offer
-- The web series about Superheroes in group, The Sanctum, clocks in Episode Five.
-- Terrorists are not supervillains. They are grubby little transnational criminals. Do we really have to, yet again, discuss why I'm not scared?
-- Oh, hey, this is finally up on YouTube,
-- Plus, the geek viral of the week.
-- Somewhere in heaven, PT Barnum looks down on Sarah Palin and sheds a single proud tear.
-- I can't believe I yet again missed NaNoWriMo. The Doomed Pulp Novel remains unfinished. You know, when you look at what Wil's doing with his latest book, I am tempted to go just online and POD with it. Not like the odds favor me selling any more in bookstores than online. Nicely enough, other people continue to do my conceptual work for me -- although not all of the novel occurs in flooded New York. (h/t i09)
-- I created a public Xbox 360 ID. Add levrunner1 to your friends list, and if I pop up, it's for multiplayer zombie slaughtering goodness. Or M:tG. And yes, that is a monocle.
-- Scenes From An Alternate Universe Where The Beatles Accepted Lorne Michaels’ Generous Offer
-- The web series about Superheroes in group, The Sanctum, clocks in Episode Five.
-- Terrorists are not supervillains. They are grubby little transnational criminals. Do we really have to, yet again, discuss why I'm not scared?
-- Oh, hey, this is finally up on YouTube,
-- Plus, the geek viral of the week.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Netflix Friday #3: WIRE IN THE BLOOD S1-S3
Robson Green. After a run on the early 90's British hit Soldier, Soldier -- widely considered one of the best television shows about serving in the armed forces ever made* -- Green was on the dreamboat track. His recording of "Unchained Melody" was the best selling single in Britain in '95.
He forms his own production company in '02 to leverage his fame, and what does he do? Wire in the Blood. It's as if just-post ER Clooney signed on to play Cracker, and out-Coltraned Coltrane.
Based on a series of very fine novels by Val McDermid, the series follows Green as psychiatrist Dr. Tony Hill, dragooned into helping the police catch killers by DCI Carol Jordan (Hermione Norris). Now, in the ordinary TV-land version he'd be quirky, she'd be adorably spiky -- it's Castle with psychobabble! Wheee!**
But no -- Hill's an unlikable obsessive who walks with a pre-occupied waddle, carries a battered blue plastic shopping bag as his briefcase, and has some serious sexual issues. Over the course of six seasons, his will is utterly broken by the abominations he witnesses. In the 2008 TV movie Prayer to the Bone, a suspect whom Hill believes has PTSD snaps at him: "Maybe you have PTSD." Hill considers for a moment and honestly answers: "Yes, I probably do."
Hill doesn't just catch killers -- he then often treats them. His sympathy never comes across as a TV technique of showing how sensitive he is; instead, it's a natural outgrowth of his obsessive need to understand and his basic humanity.
Some episodes do descend into high pulp (or, rather, ascend). But over the course of six seasons there are damn few clunkers, plenty of very dark moments and some great, twisty, fucked-up mysteries.
If there are six seasons, why do I only recommend S1-S3? Because if you watch all six you'll enjoy them, but those first three seasons are where you get to watch Hermione Norris break your goddam heart. No offense to her replacement, Simone Lahbib, but watching Green and Norris slowly circle in on a strangely noble co-dependency is just great, gut-level storytelling. I have had friends who wanted to quit writing after watching those first three seasons. (right, Kevin?)
Apparently, there is an American adaptation of this show being made right now. If they have the guts to do the same plotline in the pilot as Wire, I will buy every human involved a bottle of 21 yr old Macallan. Because, seriously -- yikes.
If you enjoy this selection, you can hunt down (non-streaming) Green's other series Touching Evil, the American version of which launched Jeffrey Donovan into leading man status in the TV casting club. Similar "broken leading man" conceit, lots of dark turns, and arguably the more consistent show. But for my money, Hermione Norris puts Wire over the top.
* I saw seasons 1 and 2 on bootlegs, back in the day. Great stuff.
** Full disclosure: I like Castle a lot. Perhaps too much.
He forms his own production company in '02 to leverage his fame, and what does he do? Wire in the Blood. It's as if just-post ER Clooney signed on to play Cracker, and out-Coltraned Coltrane.
Based on a series of very fine novels by Val McDermid, the series follows Green as psychiatrist Dr. Tony Hill, dragooned into helping the police catch killers by DCI Carol Jordan (Hermione Norris). Now, in the ordinary TV-land version he'd be quirky, she'd be adorably spiky -- it's Castle with psychobabble! Wheee!**
But no -- Hill's an unlikable obsessive who walks with a pre-occupied waddle, carries a battered blue plastic shopping bag as his briefcase, and has some serious sexual issues. Over the course of six seasons, his will is utterly broken by the abominations he witnesses. In the 2008 TV movie Prayer to the Bone, a suspect whom Hill believes has PTSD snaps at him: "Maybe you have PTSD." Hill considers for a moment and honestly answers: "Yes, I probably do."
Hill doesn't just catch killers -- he then often treats them. His sympathy never comes across as a TV technique of showing how sensitive he is; instead, it's a natural outgrowth of his obsessive need to understand and his basic humanity.
Some episodes do descend into high pulp (or, rather, ascend). But over the course of six seasons there are damn few clunkers, plenty of very dark moments and some great, twisty, fucked-up mysteries.
If there are six seasons, why do I only recommend S1-S3? Because if you watch all six you'll enjoy them, but those first three seasons are where you get to watch Hermione Norris break your goddam heart. No offense to her replacement, Simone Lahbib, but watching Green and Norris slowly circle in on a strangely noble co-dependency is just great, gut-level storytelling. I have had friends who wanted to quit writing after watching those first three seasons. (right, Kevin?)
Apparently, there is an American adaptation of this show being made right now. If they have the guts to do the same plotline in the pilot as Wire, I will buy every human involved a bottle of 21 yr old Macallan. Because, seriously -- yikes.
If you enjoy this selection, you can hunt down (non-streaming) Green's other series Touching Evil, the American version of which launched Jeffrey Donovan into leading man status in the TV casting club. Similar "broken leading man" conceit, lots of dark turns, and arguably the more consistent show. But for my money, Hermione Norris puts Wire over the top.
* I saw seasons 1 and 2 on bootlegs, back in the day. Great stuff.
** Full disclosure: I like Castle a lot. Perhaps too much.
Friday, November 13, 2009
LEVERAGE #209 "The Lost Heir Job" Post-Game
Posted through the wifi connection on Virgin American 30,000 feet up. Welcome to the future.
Right, so here we were. Gina was willing to work right up until the delivery date, but we realized that plot-wise a pregnancy didn't work, and shooting around her was not just getting difficult but was kind of an insult to the character and the actress. We accelerated her arc so that she left at ep #207 for good, valid story reasons -- and in a heckuva episode to boot.
But one of the things we were obsessive about -- okay, Downey was just thorough, I'm the obsessive one -- in designing the show was making sure it was a true five-hander. We didn't want Genius McCranky and the Con Sidekicks. Thankfully, in a con crew the jobs are highly specialized, leading us to very character-specific obstacles and story missions. Each Leverage character served a specific niche in the crime world job set. A very specific niche. No (or minor) crossover means we know what everyone is doing in every job in every episode.
So what happens when you lose one? You lose your grifter on a con show?
None of the other characters could fill the slot. I mean, the actors could -- each is very entertaining when running the grift. But they're entertaining in very specific, character-oriented ways.
When Parker's on the grift, the fun is in anticipating when her ability to interact with humans will break down. Nate, it's all about the Mean Guy persona. He can do the other personas, but they don't really feel like Nate. Not only that, we had a specific arc for the back half of the season for him, which involved keeping him on the Mastermind train as much as possible. Hardison's weakness is that he always goes to far in the grift, and Eliot ... well, Kane's done a fantastic job making Eliot more than we originally anticipated, but the Hitter has to stay outside, protecting the weak side and making sure there's always a clear escape route.
Complicating this was the fact we knew Sophie would be coming back. A new grifter -- female to help maintain the balance of the show -- was a substitute, not a replacement. She couldn't be too close to Sophie, or the audience might believe the change was permanent. Also, similar made the writing boring. The team was comfortable with Sophie, and if conflict is the spice of TV then we needed to ramp up the difference to ramp up the discomfort.
This lead us to design the new grifter in a very specific way: although she'd be doing Sophie's job, she'd be the opposite of Sophie's persona. Where Sophie's European and genteel, Tara's ballsy and physical. In one email I sent Downey while we were designing the character (I was up in Portland shooting #207) I wrote "While Sophie still exchanges Christmas cards with some of her marks, the end of Tara's cons involve running out of burning buildings carrying metal briefcases full of blood-stained money."
We have an entire backstory for Tara and her friendship with Sophie that you'll never see. The origin of her skills are hinted at in a few episodes, if you watch carefully. One might deduce that her education involved some of your tax dollars at work.
At the same time we were designing the character, TNT was floating names by us. As the network they have a fair amount of say in casting, and in particular replacing a show lead. Jeri's name came up, we all dug it, we talked to her on the phone and sent the character breakdown -- bang bang, done in a week.
I want to say this right now -- she's amazing. Not only is she a fine actress, she came in at a very stressful time, set everyone at ease and very quickly became part of the Portland Family. I've rarely seen a show do what we did in mid-season (only Life comes to mind). There are a lot of issues involved in bringing in a new human to an ensemble cast, particularly one with the very family-style chemistry our cast has. She's funny -- which you almost never see because of typical Hollywood typecasting -- and she hung off a roof with the best of them. I'd work with her any time, any place.
As far as the Tara character, yes, she did pull off a con on our team -- by cheating. Sophie's inside info gave her this one shot. After this, you'll see, again, Tara's skill set is precisely defined. She's got the odd surprise up her sleeve, and she can (and does) fail when things break the wrong way.
This episode is actually the second we shot with Jeri. #210 was shot first due to a script overlap. So we kind of shot the team's reaction to meeting Tara before the actual meeting. This hiccup actually gave us the inspiration for the show's con structure. So, if the team didn't react to meeting Tara until #210, that gave us the interesting idea of ending #209 with that meeting. But that meant they couldn't know Tara was the replacement ... and so the lawyer character was born, giving us a nice con to overlay on the crime story.
The plot itself is one of our most Rockford-y homages: the lost will, the Jimmie Joe Meeker style attorney, almost more detective show than con. As a matter of fact, in the first version of the story, the girl wasn't actually the Lost Heir. We just kind of fell in love with the idea of highlighting Nate Ford's detective skills over his con skills for an episode. (Playing with Nate's identity is a major part of this year, and the focus of the winter arc)
We got ridiculously lucky with the villain. This ep really put the villain and Nate head-to-head more than most. Peter Riegert's a friend of Tim's, he dug the script -- and we got one of our best villains. The fun for us in most episodes was watching the villain unravel because of our team;s machinations. The fun for this one was having an absolutely cold-blooded, dead-eyed bastard in the driver's seat. The moment where he shoots his Busey still makes me laugh on the hundredth viewing.
The episode also includes one of my favorite stand-alone sequences: Eliot and Parker vs. the cops. Kane and Beth had really advanced their characters' relationship over the year, and it was fun to watch Crazy Parker re-emerge in an adrenaline situation. She seems genuinely delighted at the prospect of watching Eliot deal peacefully with the cops ("I look forward to watching you do that"). Good lesson for writers, by the way. That line was meant to play as frustrated. Beth brought out kind of a buzzed, kinky vibe to it that was utterly unexpected, and it works 1000x better.
Hokay, to the questions:
@Taima: I do have a question though. Did Nate know from early on that Ruth was Kimball's daughter? Or did he come to that conclusion while he was in court?
He actually suspected it when he saw the mother's driver's license ("color blindness" is up there on the screen, for all to see). Even when he tumbled it, he tried to go through with the Lost Heir scam because a.) he didn't want to endanger the real daughter if he could help it, b.) he wasn;t sure about the moral ramifications of telling this woman the truth and c.) that gave him a backup he could spring when his opponent was least expecting it. Revealing the real daughter was Plan M.
@Jocelyn: Great side arm throw from Christian with the rock and according to him that was all real. How many takes do you have to do to get that just right?
First take, I think. Can't believe he kept it in frame for the whole slo-mo shot.
@ita: Are you pissed at TNT for spoiling that Jeri's character was a grifter just before the last segment? Are you allowed to say if you are?
We were ... not happy. Not angry, but not happy. To be fair, I believe the promotions people cut the promos without knowing it would run in the penultimate spot rather than before the credits. But we had a chat, and they were incredibly apologetic, so we'll just have to communicate with them better. TNT has sold the hell out of the show, and that was a pretty minor hiccup in two years of kick-assery on their part.
@Thomas: Does Beth Riesgraf do her own stunts or do you use a stunt double?
Beth does everything the insurance company will let her do. In the finale, for example, she's the one on the line rappelling, but for the feee-jump she had a double. In #205 getting hit by a car is actually a very specific skill, so it was her double. She walked the ledge in #214 though.
@Barb: If the lawyer is listed as a beneficiary, he shouldn't be legally able to be the executor of that will. ...not trying to stop the fun train, just wondering how ya'll decided to make that play
Executors can be beneficiaries in most cases. This story is actually based on a real case -- he's abusing his powers as executor in a very specific way. Annnnd I'm pretty sure if I reveal more I'll wind up getting sued. Just, ah, once again, we are as accurate with the law as House is with medicine. Take that as you will.
@Catchester: She was just too good. She can create a fake ID good enough to fool Hardison (who can create CIA level fake ID's so should know what to look for). She can grift well enough to completely fool the everyone on team. She can pick locks (i assume they didn't give her a key to the apartment). Added to that she's beautiful, confident, more skilled than Sophie (since she obviously avoided being on Nate's radar) and ends up laughing at having pulled the wool over the team's eyes. I'm just surprised you didn't have her disarm five armed thugs and mastermind the whole thing.
You're kind of looking at it backward. It's not "How is that character so superbly skilled?", it's "Why does that character seem superbly skilled, and what does that tell me about off-screen stuff?" Simply put, again, Tara cheated. Sophie helped her with the con; there's a reason her fake ID is that good; she didn't cross Nate's radar because she worked a different kind of crime, and she used Sophie's key to Nate's apartment.
But we really felt she had to prove herself. You don't get to join the Leverage team just because you asked. You gotta impress them.
And "It took you long enough", watch for that phrase to recur ...
@MelodyAnne: 3) This is doesn't really have anything to do with the episode.. but are you guys considering doing more viewing parties for the season 3 premier? I took my mom to the one in Tampa, FL for her birthday. (She is a HUGE fan and I wanted to say thank you because I totally gave her a better present than my brother. haha! And I got to ask you a question via skype! I still annoy my friends constantly with that story...)
Not for the winter premiere, but for Season 3, absolutely.
@pogo9200: I also noticed that Parker is getting sexier while crawling through air ducks. Off the shoulder top and hair down with loose braids. I kinda miss the old Parker.
@Chris Ayers: But she also seemed especially comfortable in social situations, more so than usual. While this has been a nice character progression, I kinda miss awkward, slightly "off" Parker. I hope she's not gone for good.
They were a man down, so she needed to be in civvies for backup -- which was fortunate. (Nate really does think of everything) I don't think Parker's changed that much. Look at the cop/hallway scene, and of course the fight in #211, and the truly horrible moment in #215 ... oh wait. Never mind.
And if you think "I looooove the meth" is her being comfortable in social situations, you have set a very low bar.
@SueN: Speaking of Eliot, I did have a moment of "What?" when he said he wouldn't hit a cop. It just seemed a bit … strange? Especially for a career criminal whose career is, well, hitting people (among other things). So my question is, why?
@Codger: My question has to do with Eliot refusing to hit cops, yet in the pilot episode, after the explosion and when they were handcuffed in the hospital, he suggested to Nate that he could take out all the cops so they could make their escape. Until Parker vetoed that and said that if he killed the cops it would ruin her getaway. Kill or not, he certainly didn't have any reluctance to hitting the cops then. What changed?
You have to remember, Eliot sees himself as a negotiator who is occassionally required to resolve situations with short, sharp applications of physical force. He doesn't hit people unnecessarily, and he doesn't enjoy it. Hitting some honest citizen just doing his job brings him no pleasure -- not to mention a fair amount of local heat.
Parker's the one in the pilot who assumed he meant "killed." And, to be fair, two factors: there was a big difference between handcuffed Eliot about to go down for ten years and Eliot-with-options b.) we just see the character in a slightly different light now that we've lived with him. Kind of like Nate getting into the cons. It happens as a show evolves over the years.
@Patrick: And my question: what's the secret web address for the streaming video of the remaining episodes? I mean, there is a way to see them before next year, isn't there? Tell me!
Sure, there's our editing website, where you can -- what? Oh, sorry. Never mind.
Besides, who on the internet likes spoilers, anyway? ce.
@Monica: 1.) Poor Sophie, seeing Nate outside her door and her first question is who died, kinda like that reaction you get when the phone rings at 3am. This makes me said because she's worried about her 'kids' and daddy's ability to keep them safe. 2.) My question: Any chance that you could publish some Leverage books? Imagine the cons, locations, and explosions you could do without the worry about expenseive CGI.
1.) Oh, that's a big motivator for Tara's arrival. Watch for a throwaway line in the conference call in #210, the winter season opener. 2.) we're talking seriously about Leverage tie-in novels.
@Nato: is "Tara Cole" in any way a reference to "Tara King," the replacement for Diana Rigg's inimitable Emma Peel on "The Avengers"?
Ding ding ding.
@Nicole: My other question is this: How long til you guys have to start breaking season 3? I know y'all were rushed when season 2 was announced. Will any of the writing team be working on other projects we should tune in for in the meantime?
Everyone's scurrying about on other projects until February when the writing room returns, but nothing coming up for broadcast. The exception is Berg, who is now one of the big kahunas on Eureka. Trust me, you are going to want to tune in to a Berg-toned Eureka.
Thank God we get a little breathing room this year --the last two years rolled out like one long season. Chris and I will have to start a little earlier to get the first few eps outlined in mid-January, but that's the timeline. We won't have quite as many in the can as we did first season (three scripts and three outlines) but close.
@CindyD: OK, we've had the summer finale and I still don't know the reason Eliot sawed that new door into Nate's apartment in 201. WHERE does that door lead? WHAT is inside the room through that door? WHY did Eliot need access to it? The possibilities are endless. Will my curiosity ever be satisfied?
That room is where the fanfiction comes true. You must never look in that room. DO NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE DOOR!
@buzz: Question: I didn't understand the ending. Tara gives the team an invoice for "my share of the inheritance" and then says "We're making money already!" Nate gives his incredulous team a look of resignation.What does this mean? The team doesn't charge clients for what they do, and are ot getting any of the inheritance, so why does Tara lay claim to a "share"? Is the incredulity and look from Nate more about Tara maybe not understanding that the team does not do this for the money? I just didn't get it.
Tara's a criminal. She gets a share of the score. Whether the team takes their share or not, somebody's paying her for her work. If the team wants to foot the bill instead of taking it out of the inheritance, that's their problem, not hers.
@Anonymous: 1) Sophie vouching for Tara's skills, combined with the element of surprise to pull a fast one on the team have, for now, sold me on her being able to keep up with Team Leverage. However I'm curious. Why did Sophie choose to send someone who is the complete opposite from her when she knows that they need someone who would be more open to being a team player? Of course, grifters are loners, but the way Tara conned the team was just about the worst way to build a working relationship with the team. Sophie must know from the way they called her that they need someone to hold them together not create more conflict because of differing priorities. Couldn't she have found someone with less of an antagonistic personality?
2) Since Tara's tentative acceptance on the team depends mostly on Sophie vouching for her, are we going to find out what their relationship was/is? Is this strictly a favor to Sophie or does it have more to do with Tara wanting to work with the "nastiest crew on the East Coast" and scoring really big?
1.) Sophie's concern is for her team's safety, and that means the best. Even if the best is a little .. spiky. She's trusting the team -- and Tara -- to work out the rough edges.
2.) A favor for Sophie, in return for a big, big debt and a longstanding friendship that started in a very odd fashion.
@scooter5203249: You had me worried for a bit. I thought this might be the ep where, as predicted by Sophie, Nate loses control of the situation and has a melt down. A Sophie no-show, a chaperon, an attempted hit on Parker, and Nate looked out of control running for the courtroom, but in the end he pulled it off. My hero.
Tick. Tick. Tick.
@Ashley: Quick question! Who came up with Nate's lawyer name? Another one! Will any of the old clients ever come back for blood?
Downey came up with Papa.. Papa ... the name. As far as old clients, Saul Rubinek keeps pitching his return as the Lex Luthor of the League of Evil Leverage Marks, but Warehouse 13 is keeping him busy.
@SueN: We know so much about the others' skill sets and why Nate would have chased them. But what exactly did Eliot do to have an insurance investigator come after him? Obviously not his mercenary stuff, and most likely not the hitter stuff. So, as a "retrieval specialist," what, exactly, did Eliot "retrieve" that had Nate on his tail? And how is a "retieval specialist" different than a thief? Or is it?
The first time they met, they were both chasing the same thief. After that, Eliot did occasionally "retrieve" things covered by IYS.
@Anonymous: What is up with Eliot always being all "honorable" and rescuing horses/beaten children, not using guns, not hitting cops, ect. When one works as, essentially, a walking weapon, can you really maintain intense values? It seems like Eliot would be walking off a lot of jobs when he's not working with the Leverage team.
Oh, Eliot has intense values. They just don't always coincide with society's values, and they've evolved from his early days. Even before Leverage, Eliot had some jobs he wouldn't take that he would've taken ten years earlier.
@ClynnGo: Why is the finale disc-only on Netflix? I couldn't watch the episode in real time or record it (my family preempted it with Obama's speech instead), but I was counting on the handy-dandy Netflix instant watch! Will the episode ever be included in the on demand queue?
It should be up now. There's a broadcast window we have to honor, X number of downloadables, etc.
@kresky's dame: "I hope you have a Plan B or F or something in the first half of the alphabet." A reference to the pilot and the line "In Plan M Hardison dies"? Or am I just geeking out on the show a bit too much?
Absolutely a reference. When Nate gets past Plan G, things start to get very hairy.
@pogo92000: When Parker & Nate are at the meet for the payoff - two things stuck out this time
1) How did Nate get back to the courthouse? 2) Did the dirty cop not know that Nate was supposed to be 'Jimmy'? Dont you think he would have mentioned that Eliot called out 'NATE'... perhaps he was going to do that right before he was shot.
1.) on foot. 2.) He was rattled by having Eliot beat him up with his own gun.
@CatChester: If Parker and Nate are both headed to the courthouse, why did they split up?
Nate split them into two plans. If either were caught by the cops, the other had a chance at succeeding. Also, one might suspect, if one didn't know Nate better, he was kind of using Parker and Eliot as bait ...
@Kanedoras: (various legal questions about the timeline of the hearing, edited for space)
Again --Law:Leverage as Medicine:House.
@briddie: Did Gina's pregnancy change the direction of the Nate/Sophie arc, or is that where you planned on taking it anyway, seeing as how Nate is 1) sober and b) a bigger bastard?
Accelerated, not changed, and some of the beats are moved around. But yeah, we're on track for what was planned thematically.
@Eyetee Monkey: At the end of the episode Parker (love to bits) sniffs Tara. I know that she randomly sniffs objects but this is only the second time (that I noticed) that she sniffs a person. The other being Maggie. My point being is that is this a conscious choice by Beth or just coincidence that she seems to sniff out other mother type figures?
That's Beth, all the way. I like that Parker uses her senses... oddly.
@oppisum: This doesn’t have that much to do with the episode, but about how old are each of the characters supposed to be?
Hardison and Parker: mid 20's
Eliot: early 30's
Sophie: A lady never tells.
Nate: early 40's.
It's a little annoying that standing next to Hutton, people assume I'm older than he is. Clear-eyed bastard.
@Antaeus Feldspar: If Kimball had the same kind of color-blindness his daughter does, which keeps her from correctly identifying blue, how did that get to be his favorite? Or is Kimball supposed to have had a much different form of color-blindness, so he could see and identify blue irises but his daughter couldn't?
...
... they were his favorite because of the scent. You see, they reminded him of the perfume his lost love (and the vic's mother) wore when SLEEEEP! SLEEEP NOOOOWWW!!
@msd: 1.) Since you haven't answered these questions I'm going to try and sneak another one in. On the DVD everyone talks about the insane 7-day shooting schedule. What are your schedules? Does everyone get a "weekend" off in between episodes or what? I'm just curious. 2.) If anyone hasn't listened to the commentaries on the S1 DVD - please do. There are great insights, techie stuff and y'all are very complimentary to each other and about the actors and crew. It just adds another layer to how great this show is.
1.) Shoot mon-fri, weekends off. That means the episodes stagger. We often wrap one episode on Tuesday, and at 8am Wed we're shooting an entirely different script. The actors have to work like hell to learn thier lines for each episode while performing the previous one.
2.) If you buy Season 2, you get to hear a drunken Frakes bellow "RED ALERT!"
Whew. All right, we'll see what we can do about some hiatus chats or commentaries with the actors, and we'll do some nice warm-up before the Jan 13th return (that date may shift). As always thanks for coming by and spending so much time and attention on the show. Really makes it worthwhile for us seeing you care about these little stories.
Oh, and see you at the Con Con March 19-21 -- the fan convention that you guys actually named before we even decided to do it.
Right, so here we were. Gina was willing to work right up until the delivery date, but we realized that plot-wise a pregnancy didn't work, and shooting around her was not just getting difficult but was kind of an insult to the character and the actress. We accelerated her arc so that she left at ep #207 for good, valid story reasons -- and in a heckuva episode to boot.
But one of the things we were obsessive about -- okay, Downey was just thorough, I'm the obsessive one -- in designing the show was making sure it was a true five-hander. We didn't want Genius McCranky and the Con Sidekicks. Thankfully, in a con crew the jobs are highly specialized, leading us to very character-specific obstacles and story missions. Each Leverage character served a specific niche in the crime world job set. A very specific niche. No (or minor) crossover means we know what everyone is doing in every job in every episode.
So what happens when you lose one? You lose your grifter on a con show?
None of the other characters could fill the slot. I mean, the actors could -- each is very entertaining when running the grift. But they're entertaining in very specific, character-oriented ways.
When Parker's on the grift, the fun is in anticipating when her ability to interact with humans will break down. Nate, it's all about the Mean Guy persona. He can do the other personas, but they don't really feel like Nate. Not only that, we had a specific arc for the back half of the season for him, which involved keeping him on the Mastermind train as much as possible. Hardison's weakness is that he always goes to far in the grift, and Eliot ... well, Kane's done a fantastic job making Eliot more than we originally anticipated, but the Hitter has to stay outside, protecting the weak side and making sure there's always a clear escape route.
Complicating this was the fact we knew Sophie would be coming back. A new grifter -- female to help maintain the balance of the show -- was a substitute, not a replacement. She couldn't be too close to Sophie, or the audience might believe the change was permanent. Also, similar made the writing boring. The team was comfortable with Sophie, and if conflict is the spice of TV then we needed to ramp up the difference to ramp up the discomfort.
This lead us to design the new grifter in a very specific way: although she'd be doing Sophie's job, she'd be the opposite of Sophie's persona. Where Sophie's European and genteel, Tara's ballsy and physical. In one email I sent Downey while we were designing the character (I was up in Portland shooting #207) I wrote "While Sophie still exchanges Christmas cards with some of her marks, the end of Tara's cons involve running out of burning buildings carrying metal briefcases full of blood-stained money."
We have an entire backstory for Tara and her friendship with Sophie that you'll never see. The origin of her skills are hinted at in a few episodes, if you watch carefully. One might deduce that her education involved some of your tax dollars at work.
At the same time we were designing the character, TNT was floating names by us. As the network they have a fair amount of say in casting, and in particular replacing a show lead. Jeri's name came up, we all dug it, we talked to her on the phone and sent the character breakdown -- bang bang, done in a week.
I want to say this right now -- she's amazing. Not only is she a fine actress, she came in at a very stressful time, set everyone at ease and very quickly became part of the Portland Family. I've rarely seen a show do what we did in mid-season (only Life comes to mind). There are a lot of issues involved in bringing in a new human to an ensemble cast, particularly one with the very family-style chemistry our cast has. She's funny -- which you almost never see because of typical Hollywood typecasting -- and she hung off a roof with the best of them. I'd work with her any time, any place.
As far as the Tara character, yes, she did pull off a con on our team -- by cheating. Sophie's inside info gave her this one shot. After this, you'll see, again, Tara's skill set is precisely defined. She's got the odd surprise up her sleeve, and she can (and does) fail when things break the wrong way.
This episode is actually the second we shot with Jeri. #210 was shot first due to a script overlap. So we kind of shot the team's reaction to meeting Tara before the actual meeting. This hiccup actually gave us the inspiration for the show's con structure. So, if the team didn't react to meeting Tara until #210, that gave us the interesting idea of ending #209 with that meeting. But that meant they couldn't know Tara was the replacement ... and so the lawyer character was born, giving us a nice con to overlay on the crime story.
The plot itself is one of our most Rockford-y homages: the lost will, the Jimmie Joe Meeker style attorney, almost more detective show than con. As a matter of fact, in the first version of the story, the girl wasn't actually the Lost Heir. We just kind of fell in love with the idea of highlighting Nate Ford's detective skills over his con skills for an episode. (Playing with Nate's identity is a major part of this year, and the focus of the winter arc)
We got ridiculously lucky with the villain. This ep really put the villain and Nate head-to-head more than most. Peter Riegert's a friend of Tim's, he dug the script -- and we got one of our best villains. The fun for us in most episodes was watching the villain unravel because of our team;s machinations. The fun for this one was having an absolutely cold-blooded, dead-eyed bastard in the driver's seat. The moment where he shoots his Busey still makes me laugh on the hundredth viewing.
The episode also includes one of my favorite stand-alone sequences: Eliot and Parker vs. the cops. Kane and Beth had really advanced their characters' relationship over the year, and it was fun to watch Crazy Parker re-emerge in an adrenaline situation. She seems genuinely delighted at the prospect of watching Eliot deal peacefully with the cops ("I look forward to watching you do that"). Good lesson for writers, by the way. That line was meant to play as frustrated. Beth brought out kind of a buzzed, kinky vibe to it that was utterly unexpected, and it works 1000x better.
Hokay, to the questions:
@Taima: I do have a question though. Did Nate know from early on that Ruth was Kimball's daughter? Or did he come to that conclusion while he was in court?
He actually suspected it when he saw the mother's driver's license ("color blindness" is up there on the screen, for all to see). Even when he tumbled it, he tried to go through with the Lost Heir scam because a.) he didn't want to endanger the real daughter if he could help it, b.) he wasn;t sure about the moral ramifications of telling this woman the truth and c.) that gave him a backup he could spring when his opponent was least expecting it. Revealing the real daughter was Plan M.
@Jocelyn: Great side arm throw from Christian with the rock and according to him that was all real. How many takes do you have to do to get that just right?
First take, I think. Can't believe he kept it in frame for the whole slo-mo shot.
@ita: Are you pissed at TNT for spoiling that Jeri's character was a grifter just before the last segment? Are you allowed to say if you are?
We were ... not happy. Not angry, but not happy. To be fair, I believe the promotions people cut the promos without knowing it would run in the penultimate spot rather than before the credits. But we had a chat, and they were incredibly apologetic, so we'll just have to communicate with them better. TNT has sold the hell out of the show, and that was a pretty minor hiccup in two years of kick-assery on their part.
@Thomas: Does Beth Riesgraf do her own stunts or do you use a stunt double?
Beth does everything the insurance company will let her do. In the finale, for example, she's the one on the line rappelling, but for the feee-jump she had a double. In #205 getting hit by a car is actually a very specific skill, so it was her double. She walked the ledge in #214 though.
@Barb: If the lawyer is listed as a beneficiary, he shouldn't be legally able to be the executor of that will. ...not trying to stop the fun train, just wondering how ya'll decided to make that play
Executors can be beneficiaries in most cases. This story is actually based on a real case -- he's abusing his powers as executor in a very specific way. Annnnd I'm pretty sure if I reveal more I'll wind up getting sued. Just, ah, once again, we are as accurate with the law as House is with medicine. Take that as you will.
@Catchester: She was just too good. She can create a fake ID good enough to fool Hardison (who can create CIA level fake ID's so should know what to look for). She can grift well enough to completely fool the everyone on team. She can pick locks (i assume they didn't give her a key to the apartment). Added to that she's beautiful, confident, more skilled than Sophie (since she obviously avoided being on Nate's radar) and ends up laughing at having pulled the wool over the team's eyes. I'm just surprised you didn't have her disarm five armed thugs and mastermind the whole thing.
You're kind of looking at it backward. It's not "How is that character so superbly skilled?", it's "Why does that character seem superbly skilled, and what does that tell me about off-screen stuff?" Simply put, again, Tara cheated. Sophie helped her with the con; there's a reason her fake ID is that good; she didn't cross Nate's radar because she worked a different kind of crime, and she used Sophie's key to Nate's apartment.
But we really felt she had to prove herself. You don't get to join the Leverage team just because you asked. You gotta impress them.
And "It took you long enough", watch for that phrase to recur ...
@MelodyAnne: 3) This is doesn't really have anything to do with the episode.. but are you guys considering doing more viewing parties for the season 3 premier? I took my mom to the one in Tampa, FL for her birthday. (She is a HUGE fan and I wanted to say thank you because I totally gave her a better present than my brother. haha! And I got to ask you a question via skype! I still annoy my friends constantly with that story...)
Not for the winter premiere, but for Season 3, absolutely.
@pogo9200: I also noticed that Parker is getting sexier while crawling through air ducks. Off the shoulder top and hair down with loose braids. I kinda miss the old Parker.
@Chris Ayers: But she also seemed especially comfortable in social situations, more so than usual. While this has been a nice character progression, I kinda miss awkward, slightly "off" Parker. I hope she's not gone for good.
They were a man down, so she needed to be in civvies for backup -- which was fortunate. (Nate really does think of everything) I don't think Parker's changed that much. Look at the cop/hallway scene, and of course the fight in #211, and the truly horrible moment in #215 ... oh wait. Never mind.
And if you think "I looooove the meth" is her being comfortable in social situations, you have set a very low bar.
@SueN: Speaking of Eliot, I did have a moment of "What?" when he said he wouldn't hit a cop. It just seemed a bit … strange? Especially for a career criminal whose career is, well, hitting people (among other things). So my question is, why?
@Codger: My question has to do with Eliot refusing to hit cops, yet in the pilot episode, after the explosion and when they were handcuffed in the hospital, he suggested to Nate that he could take out all the cops so they could make their escape. Until Parker vetoed that and said that if he killed the cops it would ruin her getaway. Kill or not, he certainly didn't have any reluctance to hitting the cops then. What changed?
You have to remember, Eliot sees himself as a negotiator who is occassionally required to resolve situations with short, sharp applications of physical force. He doesn't hit people unnecessarily, and he doesn't enjoy it. Hitting some honest citizen just doing his job brings him no pleasure -- not to mention a fair amount of local heat.
Parker's the one in the pilot who assumed he meant "killed." And, to be fair, two factors: there was a big difference between handcuffed Eliot about to go down for ten years and Eliot-with-options b.) we just see the character in a slightly different light now that we've lived with him. Kind of like Nate getting into the cons. It happens as a show evolves over the years.
@Patrick: And my question: what's the secret web address for the streaming video of the remaining episodes? I mean, there is a way to see them before next year, isn't there? Tell me!
Sure, there's our editing website, where you can -- what? Oh, sorry. Never mind.
Besides, who on the internet likes spoilers, anyway? ce.
@Monica: 1.) Poor Sophie, seeing Nate outside her door and her first question is who died, kinda like that reaction you get when the phone rings at 3am. This makes me said because she's worried about her 'kids' and daddy's ability to keep them safe. 2.) My question: Any chance that you could publish some Leverage books? Imagine the cons, locations, and explosions you could do without the worry about expenseive CGI.
1.) Oh, that's a big motivator for Tara's arrival. Watch for a throwaway line in the conference call in #210, the winter season opener. 2.) we're talking seriously about Leverage tie-in novels.
@Nato: is "Tara Cole" in any way a reference to "Tara King," the replacement for Diana Rigg's inimitable Emma Peel on "The Avengers"?
Ding ding ding.
@Nicole: My other question is this: How long til you guys have to start breaking season 3? I know y'all were rushed when season 2 was announced. Will any of the writing team be working on other projects we should tune in for in the meantime?
Everyone's scurrying about on other projects until February when the writing room returns, but nothing coming up for broadcast. The exception is Berg, who is now one of the big kahunas on Eureka. Trust me, you are going to want to tune in to a Berg-toned Eureka.
Thank God we get a little breathing room this year --the last two years rolled out like one long season. Chris and I will have to start a little earlier to get the first few eps outlined in mid-January, but that's the timeline. We won't have quite as many in the can as we did first season (three scripts and three outlines) but close.
@CindyD: OK, we've had the summer finale and I still don't know the reason Eliot sawed that new door into Nate's apartment in 201. WHERE does that door lead? WHAT is inside the room through that door? WHY did Eliot need access to it? The possibilities are endless. Will my curiosity ever be satisfied?
That room is where the fanfiction comes true. You must never look in that room. DO NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE DOOR!
@buzz: Question: I didn't understand the ending. Tara gives the team an invoice for "my share of the inheritance" and then says "We're making money already!" Nate gives his incredulous team a look of resignation.What does this mean? The team doesn't charge clients for what they do, and are ot getting any of the inheritance, so why does Tara lay claim to a "share"? Is the incredulity and look from Nate more about Tara maybe not understanding that the team does not do this for the money? I just didn't get it.
Tara's a criminal. She gets a share of the score. Whether the team takes their share or not, somebody's paying her for her work. If the team wants to foot the bill instead of taking it out of the inheritance, that's their problem, not hers.
@Anonymous: 1) Sophie vouching for Tara's skills, combined with the element of surprise to pull a fast one on the team have, for now, sold me on her being able to keep up with Team Leverage. However I'm curious. Why did Sophie choose to send someone who is the complete opposite from her when she knows that they need someone who would be more open to being a team player? Of course, grifters are loners, but the way Tara conned the team was just about the worst way to build a working relationship with the team. Sophie must know from the way they called her that they need someone to hold them together not create more conflict because of differing priorities. Couldn't she have found someone with less of an antagonistic personality?
2) Since Tara's tentative acceptance on the team depends mostly on Sophie vouching for her, are we going to find out what their relationship was/is? Is this strictly a favor to Sophie or does it have more to do with Tara wanting to work with the "nastiest crew on the East Coast" and scoring really big?
1.) Sophie's concern is for her team's safety, and that means the best. Even if the best is a little .. spiky. She's trusting the team -- and Tara -- to work out the rough edges.
2.) A favor for Sophie, in return for a big, big debt and a longstanding friendship that started in a very odd fashion.
@scooter5203249: You had me worried for a bit. I thought this might be the ep where, as predicted by Sophie, Nate loses control of the situation and has a melt down. A Sophie no-show, a chaperon, an attempted hit on Parker, and Nate looked out of control running for the courtroom, but in the end he pulled it off. My hero.
Tick. Tick. Tick.
@Ashley: Quick question! Who came up with Nate's lawyer name? Another one! Will any of the old clients ever come back for blood?
Downey came up with Papa.. Papa ... the name. As far as old clients, Saul Rubinek keeps pitching his return as the Lex Luthor of the League of Evil Leverage Marks, but Warehouse 13 is keeping him busy.
@SueN: We know so much about the others' skill sets and why Nate would have chased them. But what exactly did Eliot do to have an insurance investigator come after him? Obviously not his mercenary stuff, and most likely not the hitter stuff. So, as a "retrieval specialist," what, exactly, did Eliot "retrieve" that had Nate on his tail? And how is a "retieval specialist" different than a thief? Or is it?
The first time they met, they were both chasing the same thief. After that, Eliot did occasionally "retrieve" things covered by IYS.
@Anonymous: What is up with Eliot always being all "honorable" and rescuing horses/beaten children, not using guns, not hitting cops, ect. When one works as, essentially, a walking weapon, can you really maintain intense values? It seems like Eliot would be walking off a lot of jobs when he's not working with the Leverage team.
Oh, Eliot has intense values. They just don't always coincide with society's values, and they've evolved from his early days. Even before Leverage, Eliot had some jobs he wouldn't take that he would've taken ten years earlier.
@ClynnGo: Why is the finale disc-only on Netflix? I couldn't watch the episode in real time or record it (my family preempted it with Obama's speech instead), but I was counting on the handy-dandy Netflix instant watch! Will the episode ever be included in the on demand queue?
It should be up now. There's a broadcast window we have to honor, X number of downloadables, etc.
@kresky's dame: "I hope you have a Plan B or F or something in the first half of the alphabet." A reference to the pilot and the line "In Plan M Hardison dies"? Or am I just geeking out on the show a bit too much?
Absolutely a reference. When Nate gets past Plan G, things start to get very hairy.
@pogo92000: When Parker & Nate are at the meet for the payoff - two things stuck out this time
1) How did Nate get back to the courthouse? 2) Did the dirty cop not know that Nate was supposed to be 'Jimmy'? Dont you think he would have mentioned that Eliot called out 'NATE'... perhaps he was going to do that right before he was shot.
1.) on foot. 2.) He was rattled by having Eliot beat him up with his own gun.
@CatChester: If Parker and Nate are both headed to the courthouse, why did they split up?
Nate split them into two plans. If either were caught by the cops, the other had a chance at succeeding. Also, one might suspect, if one didn't know Nate better, he was kind of using Parker and Eliot as bait ...
@Kanedoras: (various legal questions about the timeline of the hearing, edited for space)
Again --Law:Leverage as Medicine:House.
@briddie: Did Gina's pregnancy change the direction of the Nate/Sophie arc, or is that where you planned on taking it anyway, seeing as how Nate is 1) sober and b) a bigger bastard?
Accelerated, not changed, and some of the beats are moved around. But yeah, we're on track for what was planned thematically.
@Eyetee Monkey: At the end of the episode Parker (love to bits) sniffs Tara. I know that she randomly sniffs objects but this is only the second time (that I noticed) that she sniffs a person. The other being Maggie. My point being is that is this a conscious choice by Beth or just coincidence that she seems to sniff out other mother type figures?
That's Beth, all the way. I like that Parker uses her senses... oddly.
@oppisum: This doesn’t have that much to do with the episode, but about how old are each of the characters supposed to be?
Hardison and Parker: mid 20's
Eliot: early 30's
Sophie: A lady never tells.
Nate: early 40's.
It's a little annoying that standing next to Hutton, people assume I'm older than he is. Clear-eyed bastard.
@Antaeus Feldspar: If Kimball had the same kind of color-blindness his daughter does, which keeps her from correctly identifying blue, how did that get to be his favorite? Or is Kimball supposed to have had a much different form of color-blindness, so he could see and identify blue irises but his daughter couldn't?
...
... they were his favorite because of the scent. You see, they reminded him of the perfume his lost love (and the vic's mother) wore when SLEEEEP! SLEEEP NOOOOWWW!!
@msd: 1.) Since you haven't answered these questions I'm going to try and sneak another one in. On the DVD everyone talks about the insane 7-day shooting schedule. What are your schedules? Does everyone get a "weekend" off in between episodes or what? I'm just curious. 2.) If anyone hasn't listened to the commentaries on the S1 DVD - please do. There are great insights, techie stuff and y'all are very complimentary to each other and about the actors and crew. It just adds another layer to how great this show is.
1.) Shoot mon-fri, weekends off. That means the episodes stagger. We often wrap one episode on Tuesday, and at 8am Wed we're shooting an entirely different script. The actors have to work like hell to learn thier lines for each episode while performing the previous one.
2.) If you buy Season 2, you get to hear a drunken Frakes bellow "RED ALERT!"
Whew. All right, we'll see what we can do about some hiatus chats or commentaries with the actors, and we'll do some nice warm-up before the Jan 13th return (that date may shift). As always thanks for coming by and spending so much time and attention on the show. Really makes it worthwhile for us seeing you care about these little stories.
Oh, and see you at the Con Con March 19-21 -- the fan convention that you guys actually named before we even decided to do it.
Monday, November 9, 2009
50,000 MIA
Courtesy The Dark One, a great story about a historical tall tale that turns out to be true.
The remains of a mighty Persian army said to have drowned in the sands of the western Egyptian desert 2,500 years ago might have been finally located, solving one of archaeology's biggest outstanding mysteries, according to Italian researchers.Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones found in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have raised hopes of finally finding the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II. The 50,000 warriors were said to be buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C.
In the Comments, your favorite Fortean tale.
It Was Never Guaranteed To Be A Just Universe
What wakes liberal writers up at night -- I mean that eye-snap of soul-gnawing, nauseating dread -- is not social injustice, is not the fear of creeping fascism, is not rage against corporate greed ...
It is the haunting certainty that Jonah Goldberg will die happily in his sleep without ever comprehending that he's an idiot.
(Yeah, I tried reading Liberal Fascism. It's just that bad.)
EDIT: One of the commenters wrote:
Wow. Great way to insult half of Leverage's audience. You do realize that there are conservatives that watch and enjoy the show, don't you? This kind of commentary which spews vitriol towards a particular viewpoint only damages and taints the Leverage brand.
I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent at all. Let me clarify.
Goldberg isn't an idiot because he's a conservative. There are quite a few conservatives I both like and admire. We have many conservative fans of the show, because enjoying a good con show, or relishing watching protagonists taking down rich bad guys is neither conservative nor liberal. A fun show is a fun show.
Goldbeg's an idiot because he writes what he writes the way he writes it.
If I'm "spewing vitriol at one particular viewpoint", it's at shoddy research, childlike logic and a truly Cthulhu-level hubris. *
But if you equateGoldberg's massively awful thinking and writing with the conservative movement -- that is, if in your world-view you are OBLIGATED to admire or agree with Goldberg just because he's conservative royalty -- then that's the sort of lockstep, blind hero worship I don't respect in anyone of any ideological stripe.
If you consider an insult to Jonah Goldberg an insult to all conservatives, that's your problem. Not mine. And, frankly, an insult to thinking conservatives.
*(I also found Michael Moore's latest film an embaressment. But this post isn't about him.)
It is the haunting certainty that Jonah Goldberg will die happily in his sleep without ever comprehending that he's an idiot.
(Yeah, I tried reading Liberal Fascism. It's just that bad.)
EDIT: One of the commenters wrote:
Wow. Great way to insult half of Leverage's audience. You do realize that there are conservatives that watch and enjoy the show, don't you? This kind of commentary which spews vitriol towards a particular viewpoint only damages and taints the Leverage brand.
I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent at all. Let me clarify.
Goldberg isn't an idiot because he's a conservative. There are quite a few conservatives I both like and admire. We have many conservative fans of the show, because enjoying a good con show, or relishing watching protagonists taking down rich bad guys is neither conservative nor liberal. A fun show is a fun show.
Goldbeg's an idiot because he writes what he writes the way he writes it.
If I'm "spewing vitriol at one particular viewpoint", it's at shoddy research, childlike logic and a truly Cthulhu-level hubris. *
But if you equateGoldberg's massively awful thinking and writing with the conservative movement -- that is, if in your world-view you are OBLIGATED to admire or agree with Goldberg just because he's conservative royalty -- then that's the sort of lockstep, blind hero worship I don't respect in anyone of any ideological stripe.
If you consider an insult to Jonah Goldberg an insult to all conservatives, that's your problem. Not mine. And, frankly, an insult to thinking conservatives.
*(I also found Michael Moore's latest film an embaressment. But this post isn't about him.)
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Okay, So What Does the Bill DO?
In all the sturm unt drang, easy to lose track of what got in and what didn't. Steve Benen gives you a primer. And, of course, all this has to go to the US Senate, the most undemocratic institution in America. So, you know, this is less than halfway there.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Netflix Friday #2: AUDITION
Ahhh, Takashi Miike. For a long time one could just assume that if you were a horror fan or geek, you'd already seen this. But it's been ten years now. Newer and shinier Japanese horror has come, gone, and been mulched into tweener entertainment. Newer Japanese horror conforms to standard plot structure and pacing.
Takashi Miike thinks standard plot structure and pacing are for little girls.
The first time I saw this movie was during a Japanese Horror Film Marathon on DirectTv. I'd just gotten a big-screen, my friend Mike and Lovely Wife sat down to grab some late night horror.
For a while it's ... kind of a romantic comedy. A Widower, still devastated by his wife's death a decade earlier, is urged by his teen-age son to start dating again. His cheerfully amoral TV producer friend concocts a cunning plan. They'll hold auditions for an imaginary TV series in order for our sweet, likable but socially awkward Widower to meet young women.
Hijinks ensue!
If by hijinks, you mean staring at the screen, screaming "What the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?"
It happens in a moment, in one shot, a tectonic shift in the movie. The train goes off the rails. And the train is on fire, and full of dynamite and naked clowns who live under your bed.
Be aware -- the pacing is glacial, and this is not a shock-horror movie. It's a slow accretion of creepiness. Do not even bother to watch this while there's daylight. This is meant to be watched at midnight, uninterrupted, to let it wash over you. For a good half the viewers, it'll be a "meh." For the half who find just the right night, it's a mood, a tone poem of unease.
No spoilers in the Comments, but feel free to recommend some other horror fun.
Takashi Miike thinks standard plot structure and pacing are for little girls.
The first time I saw this movie was during a Japanese Horror Film Marathon on DirectTv. I'd just gotten a big-screen, my friend Mike and Lovely Wife sat down to grab some late night horror.
For a while it's ... kind of a romantic comedy. A Widower, still devastated by his wife's death a decade earlier, is urged by his teen-age son to start dating again. His cheerfully amoral TV producer friend concocts a cunning plan. They'll hold auditions for an imaginary TV series in order for our sweet, likable but socially awkward Widower to meet young women.
Hijinks ensue!
If by hijinks, you mean staring at the screen, screaming "What the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?"
It happens in a moment, in one shot, a tectonic shift in the movie. The train goes off the rails. And the train is on fire, and full of dynamite and naked clowns who live under your bed.
Be aware -- the pacing is glacial, and this is not a shock-horror movie. It's a slow accretion of creepiness. Do not even bother to watch this while there's daylight. This is meant to be watched at midnight, uninterrupted, to let it wash over you. For a good half the viewers, it'll be a "meh." For the half who find just the right night, it's a mood, a tone poem of unease.
No spoilers in the Comments, but feel free to recommend some other horror fun.
Your Entertainment Setup
Ran into an interesting design problem the other day. The house we moved into (it was a flip, old house/new wiring) has one of those iPod docks in the front room. Pop in the iPod, play though speakers built in through the whole house. The CD player and AV receiver running the system are tucked away in a nook, on a shelf just above the stacked washer/dryer units. The wires for the system run from a hole in the wall behind them, into the back of the receiver.
Now of course, you don't need to do a hard-wire hookup anymore -- just connect your A/V receiver up to an Airport Express and stream your music. Which is what I was intending on doing last weekend ...
... until I discovered that the power outlet running the AV receiver was behind the washer dryer stack. No way I'm pulling down a half-ton of machinery to plug in an Airport Express that probably won't fit back there anyway when you replace the washer/dryer. By hiding the power outlets behind the appliances, the designer made the wiring cleaner, simpler -- and utterly un-upgradable. Of course, why would you upgrade? You can hook up your speakers to your iPod! When will we ever invent anything cooler than that?
I theory, I can't even unplug and replace the AV receiver without pulling out those appliances. Remember, when installing anything in your house:
a.) Assume it will break, or you will need to remove it at some point.
b.) Remember you will be pissed off and impatient when doing so. Design backwards, to minimize your own frustration. The longer it takes to make it pretty, the longer it'll take to tear it out it when you need to. When, not if. When.
Actually, let's make this more than a grouse. Your entertainment setup, in the Comments.
Mine is very simple:
-- Sharp Aquos 42'
-- Tivo Series 3 HD (with those accursed Time Warner cable cards that reset themselves every three months). When I moved back to LA, went with Time Warner Cable after years of satellite for the Tivo interface. I have experienced a DVR without the Tivo interface. We will never speak of it.
-- Xbox 360
-- Apple 1Tb Time Capsule/Router
-- Rivet
-- Handbrake
Both the Tivo and Xbox have access to Netflix Streaming, the Tivo also gives access to Amazon VOD and now Blockbuster streaming. The Xbox also plays my ripped media stored on my Time Machine (it's connected by an ethernet cable) through Rivet. Apparently Orb, the stream-everywhere program is now available on Mac, so I'll download it just to give it a try and report back.
Considering getting an OPPO region-free DVD player, but to tell the truth I usually just rip my (personal, legally purchased) foreign DVD's with Mac the Ripper and then convert them to mp4 with Handbrake . *
You can use just Handbrake now, apparently, but I got into the habit of the two step process and some irrational part of me likes breaking the task down into specialized programs for each step. If you have any settings you like for Handbrake, toss 'em in. Tuning Handbrake is a sub-hobby all its own.
No, no Blu-ray. Regular old HD is just fine, thanks. I don't upgrade often, or go for the biggest/most expensive. My fetish for one-bag travelling extends all the way down through my life.
Now of course, you don't need to do a hard-wire hookup anymore -- just connect your A/V receiver up to an Airport Express and stream your music. Which is what I was intending on doing last weekend ...
... until I discovered that the power outlet running the AV receiver was behind the washer dryer stack. No way I'm pulling down a half-ton of machinery to plug in an Airport Express that probably won't fit back there anyway when you replace the washer/dryer. By hiding the power outlets behind the appliances, the designer made the wiring cleaner, simpler -- and utterly un-upgradable. Of course, why would you upgrade? You can hook up your speakers to your iPod! When will we ever invent anything cooler than that?
I theory, I can't even unplug and replace the AV receiver without pulling out those appliances. Remember, when installing anything in your house:
a.) Assume it will break, or you will need to remove it at some point.
b.) Remember you will be pissed off and impatient when doing so. Design backwards, to minimize your own frustration. The longer it takes to make it pretty, the longer it'll take to tear it out it when you need to. When, not if. When.
Actually, let's make this more than a grouse. Your entertainment setup, in the Comments.
Mine is very simple:
-- Sharp Aquos 42'
-- Tivo Series 3 HD (with those accursed Time Warner cable cards that reset themselves every three months). When I moved back to LA, went with Time Warner Cable after years of satellite for the Tivo interface. I have experienced a DVR without the Tivo interface. We will never speak of it.
-- Xbox 360
-- Apple 1Tb Time Capsule/Router
-- Rivet
-- Handbrake
Both the Tivo and Xbox have access to Netflix Streaming, the Tivo also gives access to Amazon VOD and now Blockbuster streaming. The Xbox also plays my ripped media stored on my Time Machine (it's connected by an ethernet cable) through Rivet. Apparently Orb, the stream-everywhere program is now available on Mac, so I'll download it just to give it a try and report back.
Considering getting an OPPO region-free DVD player, but to tell the truth I usually just rip my (personal, legally purchased) foreign DVD's with Mac the Ripper and then convert them to mp4 with Handbrake . *
You can use just Handbrake now, apparently, but I got into the habit of the two step process and some irrational part of me likes breaking the task down into specialized programs for each step. If you have any settings you like for Handbrake, toss 'em in. Tuning Handbrake is a sub-hobby all its own.
No, no Blu-ray. Regular old HD is just fine, thanks. I don't upgrade often, or go for the biggest/most expensive. My fetish for one-bag travelling extends all the way down through my life.
Ezra Klein Wonks So You Don't Have To ...
The first part of his interview with the head of the largest managed health care company in America is here. If you've never been over there before, rip through the archives. Ezra has a remarkably clear writing style, and manages to do an excellent job of translating arcane health care terms into things people can understand.
Assuming you want to understand, and you're not just a crazy person who thinks making sure you don't lose your house when your kid gets sick is the moral equivalent of Dachau.
Assuming you want to understand, and you're not just a crazy person who thinks making sure you don't lose your house when your kid gets sick is the moral equivalent of Dachau.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)