Talk:Leverage (American TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Episode Section[edit]

The episode section appears to be unnecessary as there is a separate wiki with brief descriptions of the episodes. Jwuthe2 (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations please[edit]

Don't add info without the citation. It will be removed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should TNT be abbreviated? Many more people rcognize the station by the abbreviation (or at least I think). peanutbutter685 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Team[edit]

Shouldn't there be something in here that this is an obviously modernized version of the The A-Team? In tribute, at the end of the "The Mile High Job" episode, Hardison says, "I love it when a plan comes together." --Trweiss (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is on iffy OR grounds. Whole conclusions can't be derived from one line. kingdom2 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That line is just the icing on the cake. The whole premise of the show is mostly the same. You're right; it is original research. But I'm sure some citable reviewer has made the connection by now. Will check. --Trweiss (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also derivative in many respects of the British series Hustle. 173.16.252.144 (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Ocean's Eleven, and the Rockford Files, and if you go back far enough, Robin Hood, depending on what you see. But it's all in the eye of the viewer, and original research. Drmargi (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Burn Notice... Metao (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And The Saint (original version, not TV nor the recent movie). And Mission: Impossible. Jeh (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leverage season 3 shares the same basic plotline with The A-Team's season 5: the free members of the team rescuing those captured, only to be blackmailed into certain missions for their freedom by a mysterious person ("The Italian"/Hunt Stockwell). Also, certain subplots are copied: a character's father revealed (Nathan's father/Face's father), and another character (Parker/Stockwell)'s role model revealed.

Also, comparisons can be made between the characters of both shows.

--Boycool42 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. But this isn't a discussion board, and your theories don't belong in the article per WP:OR. You might want to share your ideas on a Leverage message board instead. Drmargi (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are all common themes, common character types, etc. The more familiar you are with a wide variety of fiction, both literature and moving pictures, the more you will see that everything draws on everything else.
But re. the A-Team... do you even watch Leverage? Nearly every A-Team episode was resolved when the bad guys locked the team in an auto shop or similar, followed by a music montage of improvised construction, and then the inevitable firefight/car chase in which nobody ever got killed or even hurt seriously. None of that is characteristic of Leverage, which is much more about psychology and deception. And people have been shot. (Seriously.) You might as well compare a chess game to a hockey fight. Jeh (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, John Rogers, one of the creators, has acknowledged that The A-Team did provide some inspiration for Leverage, along with The Rockford Files. But the connections are all very loose. On the hother hand, the claim that it's a derivation of Hustle holds no water -- neither creator had seen the show at the time of development, and both are quick to point out the show is a standard con show, quite different from Leverage. Drmargi (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And A-Team drew inspiration from, etc. "Some inspiration," yes... and given how successful The A-Team was I have little doubt that "it's part A-Team" was part of the pitch to the network! But to call it an "obviously modernized version of", as the OP does here, is going much too far. They've already done a whole ep that was a Mission: Impossible homage, complete with panel truck, fake gunshots, etc. ("The Stork Job"), and it seems that the third season finale will be inspired by one of the original "Saint" stories by Leslie Charteris. Yes, I read John Rogers' blog too. :) Jeh (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't, in a million years, have described "The Stork Job" as an homage to Mission: Impossible based on what you cite, or what I saw. But it does point up the "eye of the beholder" aspect of this discussion, which is why all of this belongs in the realm of WP:OR. Moreover, much of what I cited wasn't from Rogers' blog, but from a public appearance he made, and can't be supported. The Saint thing is interesting, though -- I didn't have the impression it was inspired by the story so much as there was a riff on The Saint in it. A friend who has read everything Charteris wrote thinks he's based Damien Moreau on one of two characters in a trilogy written fairly early on, and they'll probably borrow from the third of the books. But, really, if you think about it, Nate is very similar to Simon Templar in several ways, so it makes sense they'd draw from that style book at some point. Drmargi (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about The A-Team, but I do find a lot of similarities with Argentinian production Los Simuladores (The Pretenders). The premises of the series is 100% the same. I wonder how that isn't credited anywhere...

--Superflicka (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is extremely common in television—and many movies. Credit is unusual, but you can bet licensing fees are promptly collected. —EncMstr (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's just a wee bit of a stretch to assume an American show is inspired by an Argentinian show. Far more likely they have common origins, since the concept is far from a new one (see: Robin Hood.) Just because you see a similarity doesn't mean the creators have even heard of the show; they've often been accused of taking inspiration from Hustle, yet neither had seen it until after Leverage began its first season broadcasts. Moreover, as I noted above, they freely acknowledge the origins of Leverage is in 1970's shows such as The Rockford Files. Regardless, your supposition is just that, and as such, WP:OR. Drmargi (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to insist. But if you type "leverage simuladores" you'll find lots of pages stating that Leverage is an adaptation from the Pretenders (including IMDb). I didn't just make it up (although I admit that, as the creators haven't admitted it themselves, I don't know how this could be included in the article). Plus, i think you're kind of patronizing (no offence ^^) by saying that American producers don't "borrow" any ideas from other countries. I can think of Ugly Betty, which was originally a Colombian TV show, and I can think of films like Vanilla Sky (based on Spanish production Abre los ojos or Three Men And A Baby (Trois Hommes et un couffin in its original French version). So it wouldn't have been so unlikely that Leverage took its inspiration from a successful foreign production :) --Superflicka (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no sale. I've read the summary of the show, and it's quite different, far more like The A-Team than Leverage, and even that's a stretch. As for your "sources", you have three items that come up on that search (along with pages and pages from the same publication, none relating to the show, if you include the omitted items), all three of which are announcements of the premiere of the second season. The IMDB is fan submitted, and no doubt what you saw is someone's opinion. Moreover, I didn't say American shows or films don't borrow from the shows or films of other countries, just that given the geography, it was a big leap to assume that they would draw from an obscure (from an American access perspective) Argentinean show. But let's be reasonable: the Argentinean show isn't shown here, and none of the writers is Latino and thereby likely to be tuned into the Latino programming here, as was the case with Ugly Betty's inspiration. It's too much of a stretch, especially given they freely acknowledge shows that are their inspiration. As is the case with the many folks claiming Hustle is their model, just because you see the similarity doesn't mean the writers used the show as inspiration, particularly given how freely they acknowledge the influences of A-Team and The Rockford Files. Somewhere along the line, you'll have to accept what the writers site as their models, and let it go. Drmargi (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cite the post hoc fallacy: "After which" does not prove "because of." All of the shows mentioned here combine a selection from a small number of very well-used (and successful) tropes: Likeable rogues; bad guys doing good deeds; stealing from the rich to help the poor, and note that the original Robin Hood had a team of about the same size; the con; the caper; the four- or five-person team; the bar as home base; etc. Many have cited the British series Hustle as an "obvious" influence, but Rogers and co. have stated several times that they hadn't seen it or heard of it. What are the chances that they were familiar with Los Simuladores?
See, what looks like "copying" is very often just "parallel lines of development." For an example within Leverage, Rogers notes that "the other crew" ("The Two Live Crew Job") was one of the most frequent pitches they got from writers; in fact it had been on their own "wall of ideas" almost from day one. Writers understand that story ideas are common (meaning both common to many people, and very, very plentiful). If you have a writer's brain, and you grew up in this culture, these sorts of ideas just come to you naturally, and a lot of them will be similar to the ideas of other writers who share that culture. If on the other hand you think "show B just must have copied from show A, both could not possibly have come up with that idea independently!" then you're probably not a writer. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the show was inspired by the A-Team (among others, but the A-Team is the one most prominently mentioned and most directly linked to (in the creators' conversations) as the inspiration. The creators (and some cast members) have publicly said this in the BTS videos (that were/are?) available on TNT and still floating around on YouTube. The YouTube copy of it is located here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5B8_xg7YMI

Dont have the time to search the TNT site for the copy there, but I am sure someone can. As for "and the A-Team drew inspiration from..." - that's meaningless. The creators of this show didnt mention those other shows as the source of their inspiration. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't judge inspiration solely by one video. I've been in the same room with Devlin and Rogers when they talked about the importance of both The Rockford Files and specific Rockford devices (such as the character Rockford repeatedly uses) as inspiration. The First and Second David are largely inspired by "Never Send a Boy King to Do a Man's Job" which is a Rockford episode. The basic structure is A-Team, yes, but plenty of other shows have been inspiration as well, including most recently, the Coupling episode "Remember This", which became the inspiration for "The Rashomon Job". Regardless, it's all academic if it can't be reliably sourced. Drmargi (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems rather pointless, without citations from reliable sources it is original research. If good sources are available then by all means add this information in the article, perhaps under a section "Parallels" something along the lines of "Parallels have been drawn between Leverage and [insert inspiration here]", or under "Reception". Xeworlebi (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several of us have already pointed out the need for reliable sources. However, I wouldn't characterize a discussion like this as pointless; it simply addresses issues that need discussion before they get into the article, and helps editors differentiate between speculation, original research and reliably sourced information. That's all to the good. Drmargi (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drmargi, I think you misunderstand what I was discussing. They have said, on more than one occassion (which are citable), that the concept for the series was based on the A-Team. I was not discussing particular episodes and where inspiration for those were drawn. I suspect that topic (episodic influences) would be something to discuss on the Episodes List page. Sadly though, as you are already aware, your discussion with them on particular episodes, may not qualify as a valid reference/cite. But that brings us back full circle to the series as a whole, having drawn influence in it's creation, from the A-Team, as the creators (and writers) themselves have claimed in multiple, available, online venues. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 04:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, at [1], Rogers wrote "We're Rockford Files, It Takes a Thief and Mission:Impossible." This isn't an argument against "A-Team" but it's certainly an argument that that's not all. Jeh (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I picked up on the A-Team vibe after the second or third episode; especially the whole idea of them being rouge "bad-guys" who are out to help the downtrodden "good guys", and the "specializations" of each character (Hannibal/Ford as "The Brains", Face/Sophie as "The Grifter", Baracus/Spencer as "The Hitter" or "The Heavy"). And it was driving me nuts how much Leverage seemed to be such a remake of The A-Team until Hardison does the "I love it when a plan comes together" line that you mention. That's when I knew this show (and its creators) were paying their respects to their ancestors (kissing the ring, if you will), and that they weren't expecting that no one would notice. I also think this show (as already mentioned in the many replies above) is clearly inspired by shows like The Rockford Files and Mission:Impossible (and even Get Smart), while also indirectly influenced by its contemporaries (or older-siblings) in the genre like Burn Notice, Ocean's Eleven, Breakout Kings, and White Collar. But unless we have some reliable references from original resources (like interviews from the cast/creators, commentary from reputable critics, etc), I think we have to just enjoy how the series is a continuation of the themes/tropes that earlier shows like the A-Team contributed to (and also knew when to wink and let the audience know when they were honoring *their* predecessors), and applaud when these shows have the grace to pay their respects with those lines that only the geekiest of us will know right away as references to those shows we and the writers grew up watching every week instead of going outside and playing ball like normal kids.

Sub-note: I do think that the iconic "I love it when a plan comes together" line is enough of an explicit reference to its A-Team inspiration that this episode/moment could be used in the article as a direct/primary reference to the connection between these two specific shows. I don't think it was plagiarism, an accident, or just a pop-culture reference that he says the famous quote, so it would not be outside the guidelines of Wikipedia to *gracefully* mention in the main article that Hardison casually drops in this line in one episode, suggesting an homage to the A-Team, a series with a similar format.

I also think it's fun to think of all the ways this show is *not* like the A-Team, or rather, the way in which it has made some "upgrades", like:

  • there is no longer a "crazy" character (Madman Murdoch is my hero, but mental illness is no longer a wacky schtick that a modern audience would find acceptable)
  • The "hitter" is a white guy who keeps a (fairly) even temper and isn't just a big scary thug
  • The "hacker" (eg the other "brain" of the team) is black. So while Mr. T was a role-model for showing a strong African-American good-guy in the 80s (well, as long as you aren't watching Rocky 3), Hardison is the black sci-fi role model that Jordi LaForge and Cpt. Sisko never quite are. He's real (eg not set in a fictional future); he's super-smart (he's not just the comic relief or "the other guy" on the team); he's actually allowed to be both a huge geek and use African-American vernacular ("Age of the geek, baby!"), whereas Jordi and Sisko were cast to show diversity in the ST future, but were strictly cast as "non-street" and "non-threatening" Black actors; bonus points to the show: he actually is allowed to have a romantic relationship with the cute blonde white girl character, and they (the show producers) *never* draw attention to this, make apologies/excuses for this ("oh, turns out she only dates black guys, based on some flashback. Oh, turns out his mom is white. etc etc blah), or even refer to as being anything special (not one raised eyebrow from any good guys or villains, not one reference to his crush on her as being "interracial"). The closest I've seen to this on TV in a LONG time is Ross and Joey dating Charlie on Friends, which is still called out as not-quite-relatable in "The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" when she says : "Well, if Aisha Tyler can play a white woman on Friends, I guess its okay."
  • Unlike the A-Team, where "the girl" is some snoopy reporter who is tagging along and often seen as a liability (and then written off the show after 2 seasons), Leverage has two crucial female team members, one of whom *does* rely on her feminine wiles as part of her grifting skillset, but the other having to be coached to remember not to stab anyone when she has to do any sort of "role playing" where a guy might make sexual advances.

I also think its kind of interesting (from an audience cultural point of view), that for the A-Team, they were 4 war-heroes, wrongly accused of a crime they didn't commit, choosing to help others rather than lay-low, while on the run from various military police types hellbent to catch them (so basically, fundamental good-guys who do things "their own way" but ultimately misidentified as bad-guys to "the man"), while Leverage is about 1 (sorta) good guy who wrangles together 4 bona-fide thieves/outlaws to put their powers of "doing bad" into "good use" by helping others. The Leverage team rarely gets to keep the loot because "that would be wrong" while the A-Team comically always had to turn down any promised payment because the client couldn't afford it or because after Face did the math, all the profits went into covering expenses. Leverage is a show about 4 criminals and an alcoholic, grieving mastermind all finding redemption and becoming the good guys that their various capers have pushed them into becoming. The A-Team is about 4 patriotic war heroes who have to find justice for themselves and those that need help fighting for it. Does that mean as an audience/generation/culture, we now want our heroes to be somewhere between "hookers-with-hearts-of-gold" and "bad guys who do bad things for good causes", while in the 80s we wanted heroes who were "so heroic, even the Army pales in comparison to these guys and their truly heroic actions?" (Think also : Magnum PI, the ex-Navy officer turned charming-beach-bum-bad-ass private investigator.) Or does it just mean that no matter how we slice it, we like our heroes to be a little broken and a little outside the law (think : Phillip Marlowe, Sam Spade, and any other "white knight" that fights the good fight even when the local law is inept or corrupt).

TLDR: I think there is a definite connection between the two shows, it is not accidental, but it's also not so fundamental that it warrants more than a passing mention in maybe a larger "Influences" section on this page (assuming proper citations are made, as always). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazytonyi (talk • contribs) 08:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Crazytonyi (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Character Descriptions[edit]

Alot of them are overly long. They would be more readable if they were shortened, but the last time I tried to make a page more concise, I ended up getting a moderation. Could anyone else more experienced handle this problem? 71.178.123.134 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all need updating, which I've begun doing. At the same time, I'm removing the bits of trivia and superfluous quotes added by a range of edits enchanted with what they've seen in individual episodes, am trying to create cohesive character descriptions. Drmargi (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a good bit of oddly specific trivia and original research in the character descriptions. Not sure if it was ever removed, or if it was and creeped back in. Either way, I'll be looking to whittle them down to about half of their current sizes. - JeffJonez (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps creeping back, largely at the hands of anon IP's. I edited one description down considerably and removed all the trivia and cruft, but it didn't last long. Drmargi (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest making a "Leverage Characters" page so people can stop interfering with the front page description, but from the lack of interest in the WikiProjects, I don't know if it's worth it... It's doing well on Sundays, but it's not exactly cracking the Cable Top 25. (And kind of hard to do with a small ensemble cast with few multiple episode cameos.) 209.180.155.12 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Parker--any possibly that her name is a reachback/homage to the Richard Stark (Donald Westlake) master thief Parker?Cal-brew (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)cal-brew[reply]

You can usually find answers to such questions at showrunner John Rogers' blog. And if you can't, you can ask the questions there and he'll usually answer. Jeh (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the current state of the character bios: some of the information, namely the entry for Sophie, seems out of date. Sophie's acting career seems to have been phased out of the series (it hasn't been mentioned since season two, if I am remembering correctly) and the description of Nate and Sophie's relationship as "for various reasons one or the other has resisted [progressing the relationship]" is definetly innacurate in light of their plotline in season four. Does anyone have any idea how to describe Nate and Sophie's relationship? I confess that I'm out of ideas. Any takers on refurbishing this section? Ringkichardthethird (talk) 22:40, 04 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theme song?[edit]

Is that a Dirty Vegas song they use for the theme?--cda (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What theme song? --71.131.30.178 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's referring to the jazzy background music that they play during pretty much all the cons. 122.106.222.64 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Joseph DeLuca did the entire soundtrack... Dirty Vegas isn't so far in the TV Soundtracking business, although they do make a lot of remixes. 209.180.155.12 (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Order Episodes[edit]

Just fixed episode order. See here: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/02/leverage-second-david-job.html for more details.

The episodes were in correct broadcast order. What Rogers posted was his best recollection of the order the writers originally intended them to be in, which was altered by TNT. He's not even sure it's correct, by his own admission. Broadcast order is the correct order, and your edit has been reverted. Drmargi (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing which made me think the order should have been different - Eliot meets his old flame in "The Two Horse Job" and they go through the whole back story of "what might have been". Then in (I think) a story around hte middle of the season it all gets explained again like it hadn't happened yet. Perhaps the order was to have been different at some point, and the eps were filmed in a different order?203.219.139.46 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confidence trick references[edit]

It would be nice to give the name / reference (and eventually link to a corresponding wikipedia page) of the scam / confidence trick used by the team in each episode. IIRW, in the 1rst episode, they use a Nigerian_scam, for example. --Adumont (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely like to see that. It would make research a lot easier. Kilyle (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see that as well. I suspect, other than brief mentions of a few as examples here, an all-inclusive list would be overkill and inappropriate. BUT, what about adding such information to the episode page? That would seem to be more appropriate, and allow every con to be listed and linked to the appropriate Wikipedia page. It should only require (in each episode entry) either a simple rewording to include the con used, or another sentence worded properly to mention it. Ideas? Thoughts? :RobertMfromLI | User Talk 04:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split Season[edit]

Does Wikipedia have a page on this "split season" the show has used for its second season? I was not aware that any show did a season like this, but now apparently at least one other show (The Closer?) does, as I read on some fan site. If more than one show uses a season like this, it would be nice to understand how it works. Thanks! Kilyle (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few shows do it, mostly the summer shows on TNT and USA. I think the thought behind it is if they keep showing new episodes during the main TV season, they will be up against the big networks that start in September. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the 5 month hiatus? It is not that uncommon, though more and more shows are put on hiatus for ridiculous amounts of time by the networks then before. For example V, FlashForward and Stargate Universe are currently on a break for some 4 months. Xeworlebi (t•c) 12:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to distinguish between the cable networks, where seasons are 6-8 episodes shorter and the split season (and there is a difference between a split season and a hiatus) is commonplace, and the networks, where it's just beginning to be used. USA, which shows Burn Notice, White Collar and a few others uses the split season a lot; I believe Psych and Monk were pretty commonly shown that way, they changed Burn Notice to a split season after its first season, and abruptly split White Collar recently when it got into ratings trouble. It doesn't split all its shows; In Plain Sight and Royal Pains run as complete seasons of 16 episodes in one run. TNT, on the other hand, has just begun to experiment with the split season, after the writers' strike forced them to use it last year because they couldn't produce a full summer season in time. The Closer doesn't split its season - it runs a full summer season, generally 13 episodes, then runs a couple episodes for Christmas (generally two, but three this year.) Leverage debuted in the winter and ran its first season in one run, but moved quickly to summer, and seems to be TNT's first experiment with a true split season, although TNT ended up showing two of the planned winter episodes in the summer because of its popularity. The networks, on the other hand, seem to be toying with it, but nothing more. I think ABC splits Lost, and NBC planned to split ER's 13th season a few years back, then changed its mind. I think they're looking at it as a way to overcome the long gaps between new episodes after January.
A hiatus, by comparison, is generally done when a show is either in ratings trouble, like V and FlashForward, or when something special comes on, like the Olympics. NBC has begun to put some of its shows on hiatus now, and save a body of episodes until after the Olympics, which it will broadcast in February. Oftentimes, in network speak, hiatus means "we're not canceling the show yet, but we really don't plan to bring it back until we need it to fill some space" in truth.
Then of course, there are the shows like 24 that run their whole season uninterrupted in a limited period of time - they do 24 (hours) episodes in about 18 weeks. Drmargi (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed? 1080p?[edit]

I'm wondering what citation is needed for this statement?

"'Filming' is in 4096 x 2304 at 24 fps, though resolution is reduced in post production to 1080p."

Do we really need a citation for the obvious? Or does someone really think that the episodes are broadcast in Cine4K? Or is the cite tag in the wrong place? RobertMfromLI | User Talk 05:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to find the information in a reliable source, but I assume it is available in an industry publication of some kind. I added the information after talking at length with Gary Camp, the camera operator and master Steadicam operator. —EncMstr (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a citation is needed. I've (peripherally) worked with the Red One (we've used it on STP2). I doubt that they are sending a terabyte of Cine4K Raw Red footage to be broadcast. As with any production, the final product gets sent, which would mean 1080P in post at some point. So, my concern wasn't the text, but the citation needed tag. Do we really need that tag? RobertMfromLI | User Talk 04:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this discussion. If someone with a bit of energy were to look on the Apple site, there are a couple videos discussing how production and post are done, concentrating on several pieces of software they use. I can't recall them all, other than Final Cut Pro, but the post-production is all on Mac, and the discussion does touch on video transmittal and storage. Drmargi (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering of cast[edit]

There have been a series of edits recently, rearranging the order of the cast, none with any sort of edit summary. If there's a reason to rearrange them, fine, let's have someone make a case. As is, they're in alphabetical order behind Hutton, which is typical of an encyclopedia. That works for me. Unless someone can make a case for a different order, I see no reason to make a change. Drmargi (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really care what the order is but the order it was changed to, Aldis Hodge last, is the order in which the names appear on screen. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that's the reason for at least some of the changes; others seem to be to list Christian Kane below Hutton. The problem is, there's never a justification, and the increasing frequency of changes is getting to be a problem. Listing cast in alphabetical order, in this case behind the lead, is as good a way as any until someone can make a case for another way, be it screen order, age, height or sign of the zodiac. But let's decide and stop moving them around. Drmargi (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just reverted the editor's change again, which continues to lack any meaningful edit summary (chronological order? grammatical order?) given there is an ongoing discussion. Another editor has already attempted to engage him/her in discussion of the edit on their talk page, so far to no effect, so I've added a comment there as well. Drmargi (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion about what order it should be, but there are problems with some which might be chosen. For example, decreasing order of significance would rely on original research to some extent since I doubt any reviewers or producers have provided a character ranking. However, the order in the credits seems quite apropos—unless they vary over time. Anybody know if they are constant? —EncMstr (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they have been the same since the first episode, even when Bellman was pregnant and not really on the show. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer alphabetical order simply for ease of access, and because this is an encyclopedia rather than a TV website, but would entertain an argument to do otherwise. (Just for the sake of the record and possible future discussion: it's customary to leave main cast in the credits even for episodes where they don't appear, or make brief appearances such as Bellman's. It's a union thing.) Drmargi (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent copy edits[edit]

Another editor and I have reverted recent copy edits that had several problems, including incorrect use of proper v. common nouns, overlinking, incorrect terminology describing the characters, and overuse of season identifiers (Season 1) versus terms (first season) that flow better. Thusfar, the editor making the edits has simply reverted, and added more edits with no more of an edit summary than copyedit. He's now at three reverts, so it's time to talk. So, what's the advantage of the changes? I don't see any, particularly given the issues listed above. Drmargi (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasters[edit]

*Sigh*, I removed the giant unnotable and depreciated international broadcasters list. It was sadly re-added, these lists are depreciated, was mostly unsourced and unless something notable happens in non-English speaking countries this information is best presented on the proper wikipedia's instead of creating giant trivial broadcaster lists. Xeworlebi (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you mean that the list is depreciated? It has no monetary value. Drmargi (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depreciated, as in not appreciated, not wanted… Xeworlebi (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO such thing. One meaning of appreciate is to gain value in the monetary sense. Its antonym is depreciate. (And please don't send me another dictionary link with a word that exists solely as a pronunciation guide, nothing more.) When something is not appreciated in the aesthetic sense (as in this context), it is unappreciated. And whether these lists are unappreciated is questionable. Not notable? Probably, but they're also commonplace, and removing one arbitrarily seems inappropriate. This might well be an issue for the television project. Drmargi (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More *sigh*. This has already been discussed at the MOS, and pretty much agreed on, only thing is getting the wording right. Or you can just take a look at the FA articles and see for yourself instead of arguing for the sake of arguing. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean deprecated ?RGCorris (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitter, etc.[edit]

I've reverted the inclusion of the descriptors used in the titles as non-notable. As, presented, it sounds as though Nate routinely uses them, when in fact they were part of a motivational speech in one scene designed to help reunite the team. It's not particularly notable, and takes on WP:UNDUE weight presented as it is. Drmargi (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This quote from the season one finale succintly sums up the role of each of the four members of Nate's team and is therefore worthy of inclusion in the opening paragraph. RGCorris (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revision[edit]

I've just reverted an edit that rearranged the plot and episodes section of the article. While the subsections were helpful, they came at the cost of a general overview of the show's premise. Instead, the summary, which was started by an editor back when the show was new and abandoned after second episode, summarizes the first two episodes, then discusses (minus a reliable source) the story structure. The omitted section is the most important content in terms of introducing the show's basic story, and its excision leaves the article difficult to understand, with a notable gap. Drmargi (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lost a paragraph during the first edit, it's back now. And I see you just reverted again, what exactly is missing? Xeworlebi (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is still missing. Let me take a whack at fixing it -- I like the subsections, but we've lost the topic paragraph. I'd like to cut two others down a bit as well. Give me a couple hours -- I can't take the time to do it now and do it well. Drmargi (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is still there, just moved to the third paragraph, the only thing removed is the first part of that paragraph because that's repeated in the (new) first paragraph which discusses the pilot episode. But I do agree it could use some work. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a fresh eye, and restore the subsections. When I read it, it felt like the topic paragraph was missing; the way the edit summary presented the change, it appeared one paragraph was gone altogether. I'll give it a careful read and edit once I can sit and give it some time later today. I'm thinking the discussion of the plot and first episode can be cut down, and very likely collapsed into one paragraph, and a new introductory paragraph written. Drmargi (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go take a look. I found an entire duplicate paragraph that's gone, brought back a few key points from the paragraph you edited out, and tightened up the basic plot line summary. It's still not perfect, but it works within the new organizational structure you put in place (which I've restored.) I'll probably rewrite it a couple more times as I think about it -- Maggie isn't mentioned, and the relationship sentence needs a bit of fleshing out. I also tuned up the Set-up section so that the final sentence is current, and no longer states the season ends with a cliffhanger, something the producers avoid. Drmargi (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement, nice work. Xeworlebi (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We can keep an eye on it as the new season starts and tweak a bit more. Drmargi (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings -> Reception[edit]

The Ratings information is a bit messy and redundant. It repeats the "Live + 7" data twice (in the overview and in the specific mention of each season). Furthermore, many other programs have a reception section. The best course of action would be to streamline the Rating information and incorporate it into a new section on overall reception of the show by critics and audiences alike. Grapeon777 (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

guns vs firearms[edit]

Eliot has proficiency with firearms, but dislikes guns.

Okay, guns and firearms are not exact synonyms — so does Eliot favor firearms that are not guns, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is a fairly old question, but regardless of his feelings on whaling guns or crossbows, that statement is quite precise. Eliot is astonishingly good at using guns - both in terms of his marksmanship and his Bourne-like ability to turn a gun into a melee weapon - but he does not like to use guns himself and seems to view their usage with distaste. Though that could be a moral attitude or based on the efficacy and range of a firearm, since he tends to end up in close combat fights far more than long range ones. In fight scenes where his combatants are armed, one of his first actions will often be to disarm them and remove the gun from play (by unloading it or tossing it). In his own words, immediately following a stunningly choreographed gun fight scene where Spencer is the only man left standing...
Chapman: You said you don't like guns.
Eliot Spencer: I don't.
[drills him full of holes]
Eliot Spencer: Never said I couldn't use 'em.
Proficiency has nothing to do with moral or aesthetic approval. "I don't like guns." is practically a Spencer motto, like, "It's a very distinctive ...." or "We'd be the calvary." CleverTitania (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin treating 5th Season Finale as SERIES Finale[edit]

Leverage has not been renewed for Season 6, and XP Dean Devlin inferred in a letter to his fans that the Season 5 finale is being treated as the "Series Finale". In fact, Devlin infers that the final three episodes were to be connected. The source is Deadline Hollywood, which should be sufficient for Wikipedia credibility. (Source: "Dean Devlin Says ‘Leverage’ Season Finale Written As Series Finale" [1]). Shouldn't this be shown in some capacity on the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.120.149 (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/leverage-season-finale-dean-devlin-final-episode-tnt/

Expand Character Pages?[edit]

This was such a great show and I wanted to encourage any fan who has a good background knowledge of the show to create additional articles for the main characters. One exists for Sophie but I think this show warrants articles for the other four primary characters. It was such a great show!

Why don't I do it myself? Well, I was away and didn't see the final season and I don't own the DVDs so I'd be working with my memory of shows from several years ago. I know there are fans who have watched the show more recently than the 4th season that could do a better job. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardison -- Dwayne Wayne Reference?[edit]

Does anyone happen to know if the character name Alec Hardison is in anyway an allusion to Kadeem Hardison, the actor who played Dwayne Wayne, one of the most iconic African-American geeks back in the late 80s? I feel like I'm either crazy and it's totally just where my mind goes whenever I hear them say "Hardison, cut to the chase" or whatever, over their comms, or that it must be at least slightly intentional. But a quick googling returned no results, so just wondering if anyone out there knows of a source that backs up my theory (or debunks it, if maybe this suggestion has been asked and answered officially somewhere). If there is credence to it, I'd love to update this page to reference such a trivia tidbit.

--Crazytonyi (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leverage (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Leverage (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Also, T.H.E Cat[edit]

I am not the person who originally added T.H.E Cat to the See Also section of this page, but a review of the premise of the show, and the See Also's on that show's WIki page, demonstrate quite clearly that these shows share a premise and it's perfectly rational to put them on each other's See Also section. I would also say more of those shows in T.H.E. Cat's See Also list should be considered for addition to this page's See Also section.

And last I checked, no one required a citation to justify putting a See Also link on page, but if you want outside sources noting the shared premise between shows like Leverage and T.H.E. Cat, you can find them in a few moments of Googling.

http://theamericanculture.org/tnts-leverage-shows-promise/

CleverTitania (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section because the association between the two shows is in the mind of you the editor, and not necessarily in the mind of the creators or writers of the show Leverage. The lack of citation I mentioned upon my removal was based on the fact that there was no secondary source that shows a direct relationship between these two shows. "Both of these buildings are red brick" does not mean that one of the two buildings should be mentioned on a page of the other building. Yes, one would be correct that both buildings are red brick, and one can prove that both are red brick. But drawing a comparison between the two buildings on their Wikipedia pages isn't allowed by the guidelines of Original Research because the 'significance' of the link between those two buildings is in the mind of the editor and has not been highlighted by any published third-party in a reliable secondary source. Wikipedia does not make associations or value assessments. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, only references conclusions and meaning that have been published by others in verifiable sources.
Regarding your article about T.H.E. Cat that you link above, "proving" it has a similar premise, I particularly suggest you read the section in the above linked article on No Original Research regarding avoiding making an original synthesis of published material. You do not have a citation that the creators of Leverage were influenced by T.H.E. Cat, had watched T.H.E. Cat or were even aware of the show called T.H.E. Cat, so it has no business being linked in an article about another show. Lawyer shows don't put in links to other lawyer shows, doctor shows don't put in links to other doctor shows, etc. They may all be part of a Wikipedia Category, but each is considered an individual stand-alone item unless there is a reliable and significant link directly between the shows (for example, "The main character of the TV Show House was influenced by the real-life doctor that inspired Sherlock Holmes, according to creator Bryan Singer <citation to interview with same>").
I am again removing the See Also section based on the Wikipedia guideline I've linked here. Please wait for more input here on the talk page before restoring it. - Markeer 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And can you show me where, anywhere in the Wiki guidelines, it says that a See Also on a television show is only for shows which directly inspired the creators, or which has direct connections to the show via it's writer, director, etc? You are arguing "original research" as if the See Also section is strictly for items which have direct and documented connection between them - based on direct influences expressed by the creators - instead of simply other topics which are similar enough to the original page, that others might find the links useful. I have seen nothing on the See Also lists of other shows, movies, books, etc. that says this is in any way an expectation of the See Also section. And according to the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style the only criteria for the See Also section is that it made up of, "internal links to related Wikipedia articles." So by what argument do you assign those limited criteria to this show's See Also section?
Also, there's a vast difference between two "shows about espionage and spies" and two "shows about average people living average lives, ending up in a situation where they become spies while trying to maintain their old normal life," or "two shows about people who become super-spies due to a technology that they are exposed to." Therefore saying that Scarecrow and Mrs. King and Chuck, or Chuck and Jake 2.0, are more than just in the same category, but largely based in the same premises, does not qualify as original research or connecting things which only have a very loose connection. You say it's only connected in the mind of the editor, but that article demonstrates the shows are connected in the mind of people who review and write about television shows and other media. There is such a thing as connected by common sense, or a connection that the The_man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus would make. The See Also on the wiki page on claustrophobia includes a link to the agoraphobia page, and there's no outside research to say they have anything to do with one another. By all rights, they are just two of dozens of phobias. But laypeople think that agoraphobia qualifies as somehow the opposite of claustrophobia, even though that's not backed up by any authority or research, therefore it's on that article's See Also section.
It's starting to read to me, that you removed it simply because in the mind of you, the editor, there wasn't enough similarities to connect the two shows. Not because it in any way was contrary to Wikipedia policies about See Also links. CleverTitania (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, as I was closing the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, I came across another sentence that I originally missed, which reinforces that you're assigning criteria to the See Also section which does not actually exist in policy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. It would seem to me that connecting to shows with a closely-related premise - i.e. those of criminal backgrounds using their skills to help those the law cannot protect - is using the See Also section exactly as Wikipedia expects that section to be used. CleverTitania (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leverage_(American_TV_series)&oldid=1203571842"