Leverage 1.04-1.10
Dec. 5th, 2012 02:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snick_backupAm continuing to watch Leverage. Am continuing to enjoy for the individual moments of cleverness and sheer chutzpah all the characters display on a regular basis. I literally clap my hands with glee about once per episode.
OTOH, the plots themselves continue to be just not very clever, usually. The basic superpowers of this band of thieves strain the suspension of disbelief an awful lot, and also make me wonder why, if such uber-competence is possible at all, we don't run into a lot more scenarios of uber-competent bad guys. Our team vs. Competent Team of Evil would be more interesting from a plotting standpoint than what we have now, where we rarely go up against someone even approaching our own hacking/conning/security prowess, and compound that lack with law enforcement on both a local and a federal level that is just supremely stupid. (And yet, I laughed when our hapless FBI agents from The Wedding Job showed up at the end of The Bank Job.)
I sometimes find myself bothered by the lengths to which we'll go to achieve our ends. It's one thing to steal from a corrupt CEO, and it's another thing to mess around with the judicial process by removing corrupted jurors, sending non-lawyers in to represent victims, and hacking into the jury's deliberation chambers. I don't care what your purpose is, that is not okay. Not.
To a lesser degree, I am also unenthused when we frame our marks for crimes they didn't commit. If the purpose of the framing is so the truth of their nefarious schemes comes out, then that's fine, but getting people charged and perhaps sentenced for things they didn't do does not strike me as justice of any kind, regardless of what they did before. Also we don't pay any attention to the collateral damage caused by, for example, bankrupting a company. That is not just the CEO you're punishing, people!
OTOH, one of my favorite eps so far has been The Miracle Job, which spends quite a bit of time questioning not only what the team does, but how they do it.
On the character front, I continue to love Hardison with all of my being. That man has no flaws. I continue to be intrigued by Parker, although I think they write a fine line with her characterization, not taking her damage and lack of social skills into parody. She's a much more complex and layered character now, though, than when we met her in the pilot.
However, though Hardison is still my favorite, the character that most intrigues me is Sophie Devereaux. I can't get a read on her at all. She's like an amoral Inara Serra - very sexually possessed and knows how to use it as a means to an end, very emotionally intelligent, only she apparently enjoys using these attributes to work cons and steal things. Yet she doesn't take nearly the joy that Hardison and Parker do in using their skills, and she doesn't seem to derive as deep a satisfaction from it as Eliot.
What does Sophie think of her marks? Does she laugh at their gullibility? Does she feel sorry for the loneliness and dissatisfaction they must have to fall for her ploys? Does she view them as people at all, or does she actually approach the cons with a far stronger (if more deeply buried) solipcism than Parker?
Buried under the sleek, confident, unfailingly proper exterior of Sophie Devereaux, I can't help but think there's a very complex and interesting woman. Yet I don't know that I want the show to explore her any further, because so far the only actual development the writers have bothered to give her is "pining after Nate." My faith that they could develop her potential is miniscule.
Speaking of Nate, I have nothing to say about him. I find him dead boring as a character. However, Timothy Dutton has pretty good range, and is a lot of fun when he's playing whatever zany character Nate's pretending to be today.
One other other thing: this show has a lot, a lot of familiar faces. Apparently Jonathan Frakes directs now, who knew? We recently had an ep written by Buffy alum Rebecca Kirsh. And our guest stars so far have included Brent Spiner, Armin Shimerman, Danny Strong, and the obligatory Mark Sheppard appearance. (I had a dream last night in which I had a long conversation with Sheppard about how I found his character motivations in that ep completely undeveloped.)
So those be my up-to-the-minute Leverage feelings. Yup.
Original entry posted at Dreamwidth. Feel free to reply here or there. (
DW replies)
OTOH, the plots themselves continue to be just not very clever, usually. The basic superpowers of this band of thieves strain the suspension of disbelief an awful lot, and also make me wonder why, if such uber-competence is possible at all, we don't run into a lot more scenarios of uber-competent bad guys. Our team vs. Competent Team of Evil would be more interesting from a plotting standpoint than what we have now, where we rarely go up against someone even approaching our own hacking/conning/security prowess, and compound that lack with law enforcement on both a local and a federal level that is just supremely stupid. (And yet, I laughed when our hapless FBI agents from The Wedding Job showed up at the end of The Bank Job.)
I sometimes find myself bothered by the lengths to which we'll go to achieve our ends. It's one thing to steal from a corrupt CEO, and it's another thing to mess around with the judicial process by removing corrupted jurors, sending non-lawyers in to represent victims, and hacking into the jury's deliberation chambers. I don't care what your purpose is, that is not okay. Not.
To a lesser degree, I am also unenthused when we frame our marks for crimes they didn't commit. If the purpose of the framing is so the truth of their nefarious schemes comes out, then that's fine, but getting people charged and perhaps sentenced for things they didn't do does not strike me as justice of any kind, regardless of what they did before. Also we don't pay any attention to the collateral damage caused by, for example, bankrupting a company. That is not just the CEO you're punishing, people!
OTOH, one of my favorite eps so far has been The Miracle Job, which spends quite a bit of time questioning not only what the team does, but how they do it.
On the character front, I continue to love Hardison with all of my being. That man has no flaws. I continue to be intrigued by Parker, although I think they write a fine line with her characterization, not taking her damage and lack of social skills into parody. She's a much more complex and layered character now, though, than when we met her in the pilot.
However, though Hardison is still my favorite, the character that most intrigues me is Sophie Devereaux. I can't get a read on her at all. She's like an amoral Inara Serra - very sexually possessed and knows how to use it as a means to an end, very emotionally intelligent, only she apparently enjoys using these attributes to work cons and steal things. Yet she doesn't take nearly the joy that Hardison and Parker do in using their skills, and she doesn't seem to derive as deep a satisfaction from it as Eliot.
What does Sophie think of her marks? Does she laugh at their gullibility? Does she feel sorry for the loneliness and dissatisfaction they must have to fall for her ploys? Does she view them as people at all, or does she actually approach the cons with a far stronger (if more deeply buried) solipcism than Parker?
Buried under the sleek, confident, unfailingly proper exterior of Sophie Devereaux, I can't help but think there's a very complex and interesting woman. Yet I don't know that I want the show to explore her any further, because so far the only actual development the writers have bothered to give her is "pining after Nate." My faith that they could develop her potential is miniscule.
Speaking of Nate, I have nothing to say about him. I find him dead boring as a character. However, Timothy Dutton has pretty good range, and is a lot of fun when he's playing whatever zany character Nate's pretending to be today.
One other other thing: this show has a lot, a lot of familiar faces. Apparently Jonathan Frakes directs now, who knew? We recently had an ep written by Buffy alum Rebecca Kirsh. And our guest stars so far have included Brent Spiner, Armin Shimerman, Danny Strong, and the obligatory Mark Sheppard appearance. (I had a dream last night in which I had a long conversation with Sheppard about how I found his character motivations in that ep completely undeveloped.)
So those be my up-to-the-minute Leverage feelings. Yup.
Original entry posted at Dreamwidth. Feel free to reply here or there. (
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 12:07 am (UTC)But also yeah it's ridic. They do introduce more badass opponents as the series develops though.
Apparently Jonathan Frakes directs now, who knew?
ICON. He gave us the gorgeous "Belonging" episode of Dollhouse. Seriously the directing for that episode is stupid gorgeous. Remember Topher's bloody face, also Topher getting the call after Priya kills her rapist-abuser.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 03:27 am (UTC)Yeah. My problem is that generally it looks more like everyone else is dumb than that the team is smart.
Oh, I did not realize about Jonathan Frakes and "Belonging"! He took what was not the most elegant script and made gorgeousness out of it.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 03:32 am (UTC)Very true! The writing was... not so great. But the directing? YES. and the acting. Priya and Topher :(
no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 03:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 05:27 am (UTC)I like your comparison of Sophie to Inara from Firefly. I've thought the same thing myself!
no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 03:48 pm (UTC)I know, right?
OTOH, the plots themselves continue to be just not very clever, usually.
Yeah, true.
and it's another thing to mess around with the judicial process by removing corrupted jurors, sending non-lawyers in to represent victims, and hacking into the jury's deliberation chambers. I don't care what your purpose is, that is not okay. Not.
To a lesser degree, I am also unenthused when we frame our marks for crimes they didn't commit. If the purpose of the framing is so the truth of their nefarious schemes comes out, then that's fine, but getting people charged and perhaps sentenced for things they didn't do does not strike me as justice of any kind, regardless of what they did before. Also we don't pay any attention to the collateral damage caused by, for example, bankrupting a company. That is not just the CEO you're punishing, people!
I agree with all of this. I mostly turn my brain off when I watch the show so I don't worry about these things, but you are very right.
On the character front, I continue to love Hardison with all of my being. That man has no flaws. I continue to be intrigued by Parker, although I think they write a fine line with her characterization, not taking her damage and lack of social skills into parody. She's a much more complex and layered character now, though, than when we met her in the pilot.
YES YES.
Buried under the sleek, confident, unfailingly proper exterior of Sophie Devereaux, I can't help but think there's a very complex and interesting woman. Yet I don't know that I want the show to explore her any further, because so far the only actual development the writers have bothered to give her is "pining after Nate." My faith that they could develop her potential is miniscule.
Speaking of Nate, I have nothing to say about him. I find him dead boring as a character. However, Timothy Dutton has pretty good range, and is a lot of fun when he's playing whatever zany character Nate's pretending to be today.
I hear you on all this.
Apparently Jonathan Frakes directs now, who knew?
I DID! But apparently Emmie already told you about it! He's very talented, actually!
no subject
Date: 2012-12-06 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-12-07 02:48 pm (UTC)I did like Hardison and Parker's characters (also Elliot), but a lot of the episodes only kept me engaged depending on whether I was particularly interested in that week's plot or not, so it's probably not a show I'm going to follow into season 2 tbh
no subject
Date: 2012-12-09 03:21 am (UTC)But yeah, great TV, this ain't.