When Leverage premiered, I was instantly hooked. I loved the whole A-Team meets Ocean’s Eleven vibe that the show had working for it. The cast was outstanding, especially Christian Kane, Beth Riesgraf, and Aldis Hodge. Production values were great, the cons were tons of fun … The whole concept just plain worked. Then, unfortunately, the show’s second season happened, which was, to paraphrase Eliot, 10 pounds of disappointment in a 5 pound bag.
I know I’m not the only one who had some … erm … questions about last season. Debbie tried not to be so negative when she reviewed the finale. Aryeh didn’t really get how they were using Sophie. And I was posing many of the same concerns at the halfway point. I’m not really sure where things went off the rails, and, honestly, I’m past the point of caring. I just want things to get back on track. Here are seven things that the writers can do to get things back on track.
- A more consistent antagonist to deal with, one whose name is James Sterling (a point not-so-subtlety stolen from Deb): Mark Sheppard is the most under-appreciated over utilized man in Hollywood today. He’s brilliant, and if you need me to explain why, well, you should just stop listening to me now. We did see more of him last season, but not enough.
- More serialized, less stand-alone episodes: Sure, there have been threads that have carried through the two seasons, like Nate’s drinking, or Sophie’s “break” from the team, but I’d love to see them tackle some challenges that take more than 44 minutes to wrap up each week. Leverage has always been a smart show, so lets see them stretch their legs a little bit.
- There are other relationships on the show besides Nate and Sophie: What happened to all of that great development between Parker and Hardison in the first season? I get that the producers wanted to “reset” a lot of things in the transition from the first to second season, but I think they went too far away from these two. It certainly doesn’t need to be the focus, but let’s not ignore it either.
- Speaking of Nate and Sophie: It has been two seasons. It isn’t working. Really.
- Explore the characters’ back stories more (Yes, boys and girls, that means flashbacks!): We know a lot about Nate before he joined the team, but very little about the rest of the team. We’ve seen just enough of Parker to make me want to know more. We know little more of Sophie than her relationship with Nate. Hardison probably doesn’t have much of a back story, and then, of course, there’s Eliot….
- MORE ELIOT: Outside of maybe Parker, Eliot Spencer is the most intriguing character on the show. He’s a “Retrieval Specialist” that hates guns. He’s stolen baseball cards and a monkey, can run a banquet kitchen like no other, and has taken down the Butcher of Kiev (And don’t even get me started about the Cakemaker of Kiev). The man is the definition of badass, and I want to see more of that side of him.
- Bring back Wil Wheaton: these words speak for themselves, no?
We’ve had access to the screener for the season premiere at CliqueClack HQ for a while now, and I haven’t been able to watch. To be honest, I’m a bit nervous that I’m not going to like what the third season brings any more than I did the last. The first season set the bar so high, that maybe we’ll never see that level of chemistry again. This Sunday, though, the wait is over, and we’ll see if Leverage has found its mojo.
Photo Credit: TNT
Some posts that may be related to this:
Clacked by Ivey West
on Jun 18, 2010 @ 11:00 EST5EDT
Don’t know about Wil Wheaton… to be honest the writing was so bad during the second half of Season 2 I don’t want to see Wil back on a mediocre show. For me it’s “only if he story is good and the show has gotten better”. I like Wil too much to see him wasted on a bad one-off.
The other points are good though. I agree with everything you wrote down. I really didn’t understand why they didn’t follow up on all that. Every week I was like “Why? Why?!? This is so weak. The drinking again? Why?!?”
I thought the episode with Wil was one of the best episodes of the second season. It was so sad, though, that the second season forgot about everything that was great about the first. It wasn’t even quotable …
Ivey, I haven’t watched the screener yet either!
Okay – I’m probably going to be bold enough to argue publicly about your article but here goes.
Wow – were we even watching the same show? While I agree with some of what you say – i.e. Eliot is awesome, yes – I want more flashbacks, more Parker/Hardison, love Sterling aka Mark Sheppard – I have to disagree with most everything else you said.
1. Sterling is on quite a bit for a guest star. I love him as much as all Leverage fans do but I don’t think the fact he wasn’t on more episode made Season 2 suck.
2. For the fans, there has always been a running theme from week to week. First season, they learned to trust each other and how to work together as a team. Second season, they realized they enjoy being the good guys and are becoming not just a team but a family. Maybe the theme wasn’t beaten into your head, but you got that it was there if you followed the show.
3. There has been subtle growth between Parker/Hardison. Like when she explained that people are like locks and need to be fiddled with. She told you right there why she and Hardison are going slowly. Yes, I’d love to see them hooked up but the writers are being true to Parker and Hardison’s character with their timing.
4. Nate/Sophie probably will work eventually. She had to figure out what she wanted and so did he. Do you not see the amazing chemistry between the two?
5. Agreed – I want more flashbacks too. But saying Hardison doesn’t have more back story – seriously? I don’t want the whole show to be spent on their background and not their current life so I think the flashbacks need to be balanced out.
6. Once again, agreed – I want more flash backs too. But it’s also fun to learn about these characters in little subtle ways. Like Eliot not wanting to hit cops or helping out the kid. It doesn’t have to be spelled out for us all the time, sometimes it’s nice to get a ‘feel’ for these characters slowly. And I think the Leverage writers/producers/directors have done an awesome job of bringing them into our homes and letting us grow to love them more and more each week.
7. Wil Wheaton would be cool but I don’t agree with Sebastian AT ALL. This show is so far beyond ‘mediocre’, I can’t believe that word was even mentioned on the same page as anything else about Leverage.
Leverage will always be one of the best shows on television due to the incredible writing, wonderful stories, and great acting. The ‘five’ core actors work seamlessly together. You might tune in for one actor or another but you’ll end up loving them all. One thing I hate is for someone to ask me which is my favorite episode, character, quote, etc because there is just so much to choose from – I can’t narrow it down.
Season three promises to be EPIC from everything we’ve seen. And I think you’re doing yourself a huge disservice by not watching the screener the minute it came into your hands. I know the rest of the fans would have. But I think you’re completely wrong to say Leverage sucked at *any* point.
*POST AUTHOR*
Ali… No worries, I love the back forth.
First off, we must have been watching different shows. If anyone can favorably compare the quality of the second season with the first, I’d politely disagree :)
1 – Im just saying more Sterling = better
2 – Themes yes, but I’d love to see more solid running story lines
3 – Even on the DVD commentary of the first episode back of S2, Dean (I think it was Dean) talked about needing to reset their relationship after the growth in S1. I want to see progression, not regression
4 – No. I see more chemistry between a duck and a band-aid
5 – See my comment to CC
6 – I can’t argue that the subtle characterization is excellent, but so are the flashbacks!
7 – I rarely agree with my friend Sebastian, so we do have that in common
Suck is a strong word, but one selected on purpose. I can’t say that S2s best episode can hold a candle to the worst of S1. Maybe its just a matter of not being able to live up to the bar set in the first 13 episodes, but to me, there’s no comparison. Things need to change to get back to that brilliance.
well I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. :) But I must point out – ‘Things need to change to get back to that brilliance’ – then I suggest you watch the screener!
Well said! I did watch the screener this weekend and I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised, Ivey. Great opening scenes, funny banter and an amazing set-up for a season-long arc!
Thanks for watching and reporting, Debbie. You’ve got me in a hopeful mood!
Hardison probably doesn’t have much of a back story…
Wow, I’m actually surprised at that statement. May I ask why you think that?
*POST AUTHOR*
Sure, let me clarify. I think his back story is likely the most straight forward. Young, world-wise hacker? Not a lot new there compared to the craziness of Parker, or the badassness of Eliot.
These three are my favorites :)
I didn’t think the second season was nearly as good as the first, but I didn’t think it sucked, either. In contrast to the first season I can see how one might draw that conclusion and it’s unfortunate that the two seasons weren’t somehow reversed, because if season 1 had been the quality of season 2 and vice-versa I don’t think anyone would have complained. Instead, most viewers would have agreed that season 1 was a lot of fun and season 2 was when the show found its footing.
Season 2 compared to many, many other shows was still pretty damned good. Compared to season 1? Not so much. I still think the only way I could say it “sucked” would be the same way someone might compare lobster to a cheeseburger. Both are good, but some might think the cheeseburger is a step down the food tier. I just happen to be a little easier to please I guess.
*POST AUTHOR*
I don’t know, sir … It is hard to watch Season Two when you know how good the show is supposed to be.
That was part of my point when I said it’s too bad the seasons weren’t reversed. If season 1 was comprised of the episodes and quality of season 2 there would have been no gauge of quality to compare it to and most viewers would’ve enjoyed the quirky, light con show. Then bring in season 2 with the perfection of what was season 1 and everyone would’ve been blown away. Leverage simply suffered from its own superior start. Season 2 felt a lot like many movie sequels do where everything is there, but the spark just doesn’t get quite hot enough to light things up like the original.
Please go watch the S3 screener and let us know if our favorite con artists are back in form or if we should brace for more of the diminished season 2. Again, I still enjoyed season 2 and I know I’ll enjoy season 3.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said with the exception of the word “sucked.” I probably would’ve said it was less enjoyable, but still better than most shows on TV, even if that’s not saying much.
I think that the reason that season 2 was not as good was because Sophie was not there. They all play so well together and if one of them is missing, it is like missing an appendage. Tara (Jeri Ryan) did a good job but she always was like a stand in for Sophie.
IMHO, Wil could make anything better… maybe an episode where he Elliot and Harding have to work together would be just the thing for a girl like me. :P
i absolutly love this show, but what is the catchy thing they say to start every episode? its something like and we provide them leverage, its what we do….