I didn't want it to be over either. Such an amazing show - where the characters themselves were just as important - maybe more - than the case they were investigating over the decades. The writing was brilliant, and the characters were amazing and well-acted. If Breaking Bad set the standard for series writing, this one set the standard for anthologies. Rust and Marty's discussion about Rust's tendency to "see things" kind of surprised me. It's possible they discussed it before, but I didn't recall it. Rust describes it as something that doesn't go away or get better - leaving me to believe he's suffering from a mild form of schizophrenia. Yet another layer in the onion of his character. What an amazing show.
I echo MrWriteSF's comments, LoriG, and appreciate your response to him. I've been wondering at what was, for me, a kind of strange per-occupation with Bishop, in terms of dislike. So your explanation helps. I agree that she had an elevated status in the team from the get-go, and I'll also agree that she didn't earn her stripes with them, the way other probies have had to do. The reason I didn't have a problem with it, was because in the team from which she came - at the NSA - she had an elevated status, having earned her stripes there. I saw Gibbs as recognizing that, and wanting her on his team because of her extensive background, along with her Abby-like ability to piece puzzles together in record time - something which endears Abby to him. I saw Bishop as being an extension of that, which is why I think Gibbs gives her such leeway as well.
The thing is, it's the second highest rated show in prime time right now - right behind Big Bang Theory. So even though many fans are vocal in their dislike of Bishop, I've got the sense that many more fans actually like her. People tend to speak up only when they don't like something. That's true of almost everything. If they're satisfied, they're generally quiet.
Ideally, you make a good point. However, I know many Catholic families much like Frank's (including my own family) who cherry-pick the parts of the faith that suit them. In fact, I don't know of a single Catholic family who - for example - don't use birth control. I get the sense Frank's family is fairly representative of many Catholic families. Also - we can assume Erin made sure Nicki was aware of Catholic teaching as she grew up, but recognized that as a young adult, she now has to make her own decisions. I think the way she handled that discussion was beautifully done.
Yeah, that's the other thing that was bugging me. I wasn't aware of libraries using thin clients or something and keeping all cached items on servers - which is what they would need to do, in order for Garcia to "hack" her way into them.
Thank you Fay for your quite reasonable reaction. I think one can't really argue with audience effect - which you outlined so effectively. If you're bored with the presentation, you're bored, and there's just no arguing that - and writers are well advised to pay attention. I think some of the elements you mentioned - mostly about how the team dynamics have changed - have had a different effect for me as a spectator. The one thing I've been reading from so many people is that the show isn't what they're used to watching. It has changed. And maybe that's the attraction for me, because they're right: it has changed, no about about it. I like the new dynamic, but agree it's not the same show we're used to seeing. The sexual tension between Tony and Ziva is gone, and now there's no new target for Tony. He's also changed in that he's no longer the butt of jokes, and no longer the clown. His irreverent observations have matured into something we can respect, and we're now getting the full force of his love of movies. I had wanted him to become more of the strong silent agent we saw in "Shiva", but that's not what happened. It's a new show, for sure, and therefore a lot of folk don't like it. I do. I think maybe because I was getting bored with the old team dynamics in last season.
That pompous doctor reminded me of a pathologist Canada, who was tried and convicted of doctoring all kinds of evidence in order to obtain convictions. His name (for those interested in googling him) is Charles Randal Smith. His "evidence" managed to put away all kinds of innocent men and women for the death of their children. The Blue Bloods doc seems patterned off of him, especially with his statement to Erin about being counted on to bring convictions. That should have set off warning bells right there.
Thanks for that, Meaghan. I did a search for that kind of thing and couldn't find anything.
I would've said yes too. But that would be cheating, because I've already done it - so it wouldn't be a surprise. : )
Milton, as a supervisor I'm more concerned about results than I am about deportment. If she got the job done, regardless of her personal quirks, I have no problem.
© 2014 TV Fanatic