26 replies to this topic

[Tarheel]

Dick Wolf joked in a recent Entertainment Weekly interview that he thinks audience response to L&O is somewhat Pavlovian: people hear the theme music and the Chung! Chung! and come into the room to see what's happening. Is this true, or does your response depend on the stimuli (i.e. which one of the L&O shows is on the air)?

This thread is the place for comparative discussion of the L&O franchise shows. Perhaps staying reasonably on-topic the L&O shows could also be compared to other legal procedurals past and present.

[clear]

I read somewhere that DW originally pitched "Law & Order: Rainman von Twitchy" as a completely different show, like a modern-day Columbo, but NBC decided to make it part of the franchise, and added a patner, an ADA, etc. That makes sense, given how completely different in tone it is from the other ones.

[Tarheel]

I think Criminal Intent came before Dick Wolf's failed Dragnet revival, but I wondered if the Dragnet enterprise made him realize the importance of the L&O branding. If that had been called L&O: Dragnet! or L&O:Los Angeles would more people have watched? Who knows. The L&O branding hasn't really worked with Crime & Punishment, but that could be because the true crime documentary thing is such a departure.

I can't get into CI or Crime & Punishment. CI focuses too much on one character, which makes it kind of an all-or-none enterprise. If you love Goren, you watch. If you don't, it's kind of a deal breaker. There are characters on the other shows that I don't like, but they rarely get entire episodes unto themselves, plus there are other characters to balance it out.

[lovinbob]

CI focuses too much on one character, which makes it kind of an all-or-none enterprise. If you love Goren, you watch. If you don't, it's kind of a deal breaker.

If I'm not mistaken, this is why Mike Logan is being introduced to CI -- so that the series isn't so Goren-centric. If this is true, I'll be watching CI every other week.

Edited by lovinbob, Mar 8, 2005 @ 6:02 PM.

[culturevulture73]

If I'm not mistaken, this is why Mike Logan is being introduced to CI -- so that the series isn't so Goren-centric. If this is true, I'll be watching CI every other week.

Well, it's officially because VDO is exhausted (so, how's Kathryn Erbe feeling?), but yeah, Mike will be on every other week next fall on CI. I'm so psyched!

[Niamite]

Dick Wolf joked in a recent Entertainment Weekly interview that he thinks audience response to L&O is somewhat Pavlovian: people hear the theme music and the Chung! Chung! and come into the room to see what's happening. Is this true, or does your response depend on the stimuli (i.e. which one of the L&O shows is on the air)?

Chimes of justice, yes; theme music, no. All chung-chungs being equal, I've found the personality of a L&O's theme music directly correllates to the personality of the show (e.g., Mothership is mellow, SVU is pervy, CI is deadly dull, and TBJ is a mess), so some actually cause me to leave the room.

[Sing1118]

Actually, the chung-chungs are different too. At least between SVU and Mothership... I can't remember CI's because I've only seen a few eps, and same goes for TBJ.

[Tarheel]

Well, it's officially because VDO is exhausted

It's kind of sad that VDO had to pass out from exhaustion before somebody woke up and said "Hey, maybe we should cut back on the Goren and give somebody else some screen time."
I think I prefer SVU right now because it focuses on the Order more than the Law. For the most part Mothership has always had a little more equal distribution between the two, and at least while Serena and Branch were a significant part of the "Law" half of the show I really couldn't deal with it.

They've said that later in the season they are going to have cross-overs between the shows and TbJ where, for example, they arrest somebody on SVU and then they prosecute them on Trial by Jury. What do people think about that? (If it will put Casey out of a job eventually, I'm kind of in favor of it.)

[Eris Rising]

On the one hand, it's an awfully sneaky way to get me to watch the new show (Like Bebe--a crush since the 80's--wasn't enough). On the other hand, it'll probably work, so smart move on their part.

[TobyRagg]

I know for a fact that they're planning to do a big SVU/TbJ crossover at least once this season (I have sources, she said mysteriously), and as I noted in the SVU thread for "Pure," I'm a little worried that this will mean SVU will start drifting away from the courtroom inexorably and become more like CI, with its hammy perps and crimes-in-progress and silly sleuthing. I'm not sure it will amount to less Novak, either; I think she'd just start answering to Senator Leghorn over on TbJ. Although it might be fun to see a whole new set of people snark on her. Bebe could bring the scorn almost as well as Stephanie March, given the chance, I think.

[name234]

Law & Order and Law & Order UK Comparison

The original headline-from-whose-ripping this episode comes, in 1988, a suburban man named Paul Cox killed two strangers who lived in his former house in an alcoholic blackout, mistaking them for his own parents. It wasn't brought to trial until 1994, and the privilege at the center of the controversy wasn't lawyer-client, but an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor to whom Paul Cox confessed. He was convicted of manslaughter. Pissed AA off quite a lot when their 'anonymous' wasn't ruled a legally binding privilege.

Its funny, in the original and the UK version they took the Forensic details, I think, I remember mention of seven stab wounds, that each was targeted to do damage.

She reminds me so much of Melnick, and I detested and hated Melnick.

Was this the Gloria Alred like character on L & O.

Edited by name234, Sep 16, 2011 @ 3:39 PM.

[Scorpiosrule]

Was this the Gloria Alred like character on L & O.

YES! She so disrespected Liz in "Helpless", the first time we saw her--calling Liz "Miss Olivet", instead of "Dr. Olivet" that I hated her just for that.

Aaaaand...now that I know we have a comparison thread, let me just say...

The original for this week's show was much better and believable for me, because the killer was a 19-20 year old, who'd been abused by his foster? mother, and drunk out of his mind, went to the old home to kill her, but ended up killing the man. After Liz took him under hypnosis, it was revealed how badly the foster/adopted mother abused this kid.

BUT, the foster/adopted father? He was there for him, so there was no valid defense as to why he would kill the man.

Don't get me wrong; I actually liked it, and was SO glad they found him guilty. I didn't have any empathy for this guy, whereas in the original, as heinous of a crime he'd committed, I felt for him. Does that make sense?

And I'm usually a cold-hearted bitch.

[BondGirl]

One of the complaints we've had about the UK version is it's tendency to water down its criminals and make them more sympathetic, but this is one of the rare times they haven't down. Alcoholic blackout or not, he went to the house with the intent of killing his ex and her new boyfriend. He knew exactly what he was doing, the booze just robbed him of the ability to realize he was in the wrong place.

[Scorpiosrule]

One of the complaints we've had about the UK version is it's tendency to water down its criminals and make them more sympathetic, but this is one of the rare times they haven't down.

Exactly, BondGirl and I was so glad to see them not water him down.

[Sarah1281]

So watching US Law & Orders and Law & Order UK, I've noticed something interesting about the reading of the rights.

In America it's:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

While in the UK one it's:

X, I am arresting you on the suspicion of the murder of Y. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

It seems like a completely different intent. The American one seems to be about protecting the suspect from incriminating himself while the UK one seems to be saying that sure you don't have to talk but there may be consequences if you don't.

[Scorpiosrule]

You would think so, but the original would jump all over the place with regards to its dates, and episodes airing in October would be time stamped January or vice versa.

Yes, but it didn't start happening until around S4? I remember in the mothership episode where Claire revealed the affair with the stalking judge, one flashcard said "Apartment of Jill Kincaid", lol. Because the actress's name was Jill Hennessy.

But, even if they jumped around with months, I don't recall the years getting mucked up. And just because we were watching in the fall, doesn't necessarily mean that the cases were happening around the same time period, if that makes sense.

Also, even if it's high summer, the detectives had wear those jackets. I don't ever recall them NOT wearing their suit jackets during episodes taking place in late spring/early summer.

[Scorpiosrule]

Great episode. I think, with the exception of the murder method, that this may have been the closest retelling of an Mothership episode ever.

I really liked how the killer confronted the doctor in the original. He got up in his face and told him that he had maybe, 9 months to live.

I also liked how McCoy, very quietly told them that when the time came, he'd be charging the doctor with murder..

Edited by Scorpiosrule, Oct 21, 2011 @ 4:10 PM.

[Ailiana]

So watching US Law & Orders and Law & Order UK, I've noticed something interesting about the reading of the rights.

In America it's:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

While in the UK one it's:

X, I am arresting you on the suspicion of the murder of Y. You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

It seems like a completely different intent. The American one seems to be about protecting the suspect from incriminating himself while the UK one seems to be saying that sure you don't have to talk but there may be consequences if you don't.

I noticed this too, and I agree with you to a point. The American Miranda is all about protecting defendants from self incrimination. In fact, prosecutors cannot even mention to a jury that a defendant refused to talk to the police or invoked his right to an attorney or to remain silent. The UK version seems somewhat more aimed at the ultimate outcome of the process--proving things at trial.
In real life, people want to know what a person did or didn't say when confronted by the police; naturally many people believe that if someone is innocent they will automatically deny committing a crime (particularly one as serious as the ones we see on L&O). So the fact that someone didn't want to explain or give their side, in ordinary life, is something that you would want to know and take into account in evaluating their guilt.
I think that I like the UK version better in that it does seem to be aimed at truth determination rather than soley aimed at protecting defendants.

[Sarah1281]

naturally many people believe that if someone is innocent they will automatically deny committing a crime (particularly one as serious as the ones we see on L&O).

I'm not so sure that if I were being read my Miranda Rights because I was to be interrogated that I would even deny that I did whatever I was being accused of even if I was innocent. I'm not a lawyer and ight make a mistake so why not just be cautious and wait until someone who knows what they are doing and whose job it is to look out for me shows up so I don't accidentally say something that could hurt me in court? It's not like I think I'd be intentionally lying to the police but little things like whether I remember what I said before or remember something the first time I was asked but not the second (or vice versa) or change a description slightly or phrase something a different way. It's just little things that shouldn't matter but might and why take that risk? Why not wait until there is an attorney present to make sure everything goes exactly the way it should?

I don't see why the police would want to interview somebody without a lawyer unless it is because they think they're going to have a better chance getting incriminating information out of a person without their attorney there.

And for legal defences as well, it's possible that if you don't mention something relevant at the time of your arrest it means it's just some BS you cooked up with your lawyer to get you off but it might not be. You could be too distraught to think of something relevant or not know it's relevant at the time. If you killed your husband and hadn't heard of battered woman syndrome then it might not occur to you to mention on arrest that he was abusive to you, for example, but that doesn't change how valid of a defence it would be.

[BondGirl]

Despite the episodes being based off of original Law and Order episodes and despite the characters being based off of original Law and Order characters, I feel that TPTB at Law and Order: UK have truly found a way to make the show their own.

[Ailiana]

I don't see why the police would want to interview somebody without a lawyer unless it is because they think they're going to have a better chance getting incriminating information out of a person without their attorney there.

In real life, however, almost all attorneys will automatically tell their clients to say nothing. Without even knowing anything about the case or the evidence, or even if what their client has to say will help or hurt. I am a prosecutor in New York, and I could give you numerous examples of attorneys whose auto-pilot repsonse of "don't give the police any information/assistance" has really hurt the clients, and examples of how people, without attorneys, have talked to the police, told their side of the story, and really helped themselves out, because we could verify what they said and then NOT arrest them.

[BondGirl]

One of the things I like about the UK version is that there's almost always a lawyer present, even though it doesn't seem to stop people from confessing.

TNT has been re-running a lot of the original episodes lately--"Corruption" (became "Honor Bound"), "Bitter Fruit" (became "Hidden"), etc. I remembered the basic plots of nearly all of them, but I didn't realize how incredibly similar even the dialogue and settings were, despite being updated and "translated" into British.

[taiko]

One of the things I like about the UK version is that there's almost always a lawyer present, even though it doesn't seem to stop people from confessing.

Sounds like Criminal Intent.

[BondGirl]

I've noticed something the UK episodes that deal with drugs. In the most of the US episodes, the drug in question is cocaine, but most of the time in the UK counterpart, it's heroin. Is it easier to get heroin rather than cocaine into the UK? Or more profitable to trade?

[taiko]

I think street drug usage goes in waves, However from Miami Vice up until The Wire which focused on the heroin trade in Baltimore it was the cocaine "cowboys", the smugglers and pushers. And the "crack" wars are what caught the nation's attention as the cause of street violence and drive by shootings. You hear the term "crack whore", but not fill in the blank (drug) whore for example. Even if the gangs were selling home grown methamphetamine, heroin or other drugs besides and/or in addition to imported cocaine processed into crack, crack was the king when the society's and addicts behavior changed. And for most of its run Law and Order was in between the Miami Vice and The Wire years of production.

[BondGirl]

I've caught yet another two original episodes that were used as the basis for UK episodes.

"Working Mom" (became "Vice"). The women in "Vice" were a lot "nicer". They turned to hooking because both of their families where in financial straits. In the original, they were apparently just bored with their soccer mom lifestyles.

"Stalked" (became "Anonymous") Some major differences here. Ronnie was, I hate to say it, far more duplicitous than Lenny--going against the specific orders of his superior, twisting and turning a witnesses' statement. And McCoy wasn't nearly as harsh in cross-examining Rey as James was with Matt, and he apologized to Rey afterwards, unlike James, who didn't have a shred of remorse. In fact, seeing the original really drives home how cold-blooded James was.

[Dana Girl]

I'm watching the morning marathon on TNT and it strikes me how WELL the first L&O eps have aged. Yeah, the cars/clothes/lack of technology are glaringly apparent, but the actual stories and storytelling hold up really well. There are some exceptions: the Laura Linney/"Rising Sun" ep with its fear that Japan's going to take us over feels completely dated, but that's the exception.

This is in pretty sharp contrast to the first eps of SVU, filmed nine years later. Every other early episode of SVU (at least the ones I catch) are about the evils of the internet/explaining in painful detail what the internet is/endlessly expanding on the trope kids are better with computers than adults. Those eps were dated within a couple of years, and now are laughable.

I remember a few "What is this Internet thing?" episodes of original recipe from the mid to late nineties, but they were rare and less ham-handed than the SVU ones. By far.

Edited by Dana Girl, Nov 4, 2012 @ 11:29 AM.