Jump to content

Which Episodes Should Have Had a Follow-Up?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

24 replies to this topic

#1

clear

clear

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 2, 2012 @ 1:17 PM

In the history of the show, there were three episodes that had a subsequent episode continue the story and show what happened to the characters. They were:

Indifference, about the evil therapist who was abusing his wife and children. (Follow-up was Fixed, 15 years later after Lowenstein gets out of jail).

Conspiracy which was a ripped from the headlines about the Malcolm X assassination, followed-up four years later with Entrapement.

And Coma, the episode where a comedy club owner played by Larry Miller killed his wife but the DA's office couldn't find a way to convict him. A year later, in Encore, they get him.

So what episodes would you have liked to see revisited?

#2

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female

Posted Nov 2, 2012 @ 3:49 PM

Most of the season enders. I hate the way, especially in the early Jack years, they just have something big happen at the end of the season and skip right over it in the new season. How long was it before we got confirmation that Claire was dead, for instance?

#3

yarnover

yarnover

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 3, 2012 @ 9:50 AM

I wish Quit Claim from Season 18 had had a follow-up. January Jones played Kim Brody, the psycho who bested Cutter. If this show had stayed on the air, I'd loved to have seen the character brought back to get her comeuppance.

#4

Dana Girl

Dana Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 4, 2012 @ 11:09 AM

Indifference, about the evil therapist who was abusing his wife and children. (Follow-up was Fixed, 15 years later after Lowenstein gets out of jail).


I love that they followed up Indifference, one of best L&O eps ever, but it annoys me that they did the follow up on L&O when Logan was over on CI. Indifference was such a strong Logan ep, and he had such a connection with the kids. I would have loved to have seen him with the little boy he saved.

Was there ever an episode where we saw McCoy get a conviction, and then in a subsequent ep it turned out he convicted the wrong person? That would've been very powerful.

#5

clear

clear

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 4, 2012 @ 11:36 AM

We never saw McCoy get a conviction and have it be overturned in a subsequent episode, but the episode "Trophy" (with McCoy's former assistant) was about how years before, McCoy had convicted the wrong person and the aftermath of when he finds out. Of course, the episode loses much of its dramatic impact because it's basically a made-for-TV version of Fatal Attraction with the bunny-boiling former assistant, but whatever.

I wish Quit Claim from Season 18 had had a follow-up. January Jones played Kim Brody, the psycho who bested Cutter. If this show had stayed on the air, I'd loved to have seen the character brought back to get her comeuppance.


That might have been cool depending how they did it. There was a similar recurring character in Criminal Intent, a femme fatale with a mysterious past who keeps besting Goren with what the show assured me was sexual tension, and it was TERRIBLE. I'm sick of the Batman/Catwoman dynamic, with the sexy villain and the stalwart hero. But. If they could do it a different way, I would have liked to see that too. An episode where Cutter exposes everything about her and she's brought down for good would have been great. But no more femme fatales, please. Julia Roberts was bad enough.

I would have liked a follow-up to season 3's "Animal Instinct" where Frances Fisher played this woman who kept assuming different identities. The episode ended with Stone arresting her but implying she was going to get acquitted. It would have been cool to see her again.

#6

Scorpiosrule

Scorpiosrule

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted Nov 4, 2012 @ 3:32 PM

See, I never saw the Batman/Catwoman dynamic between Nicole Wallace and Bobby Goren on CI. It more of his Sherlock Holmes coming up against her whatever the fuck she was. Never saw any kind of sexual tension whatsoever, but minds against minds, if that makes sense.

And January Jones' character was NO Nicole Wallace.

But I was fine with no follow ups on this show, because one of the things I loved about it was that the good guys didn't always win. That made up for a lot of the rolling of the eyes, where the law was concerned.

#7

culturevulture73

culturevulture73

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 4, 2012 @ 10:27 PM

"Entitled" was the followup to the unsolved case in "Mayhem" - part one on SVU and part two on Mothership. It follows up on the case that opens "Mayhem," the guy killed in Battery Park by a guy with glasses (Robin Tunney, aka Lisbon on The Mentalist, is the girl in the car - she looks about twelve). They get the wrong guy then and all I remember about the followup is Lennie talking in interrogation about how he and his "partner at the time" spent weeks walking along the sea wall, trying to find the gun (which is an add on).

I'd like SVU to explain why Jack left as DA, since Cutter said in his first appearance there something about a new DA. I'd like to find out if Adam ever came home from Vienna. Did Ed Green go open a bar somewhere or a restaurant in Santa Fe - we at least found out what happened to Mike and Rey (although Mike leaving CI was a bit of a muddle too). Why was Abby never mentioned when she went off to join the Federal prosecutors? I did like that once Balacer came back, we got a few mentions of where everyone was but boy, it was like pulling teeth.

#8

yarnover

yarnover

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 5, 2012 @ 8:09 AM

And January Jones' character was NO Nicole Wallace.

For which I'm eternally grateful. Not a fan of Nicole Wallace. In "Quit Claim," there was no hint of sexual tension between Cutter and Kim Brody. He was just shown almost going over the edge to try to bring her down. The only follow up I would have liked for that episode is to see Cutter take her down.

#9

Scorpiosrule

Scorpiosrule

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted Nov 5, 2012 @ 8:13 AM

Oh, I wasn't a fan of Niole, either, but she did give Goren a run for his money. She was definitely more clever, anyway.

Personally, at the core, the mothership was mostly a procedural, and not a serialized show--characters came and went. That we didn't get a follow up to what happened to whom, didn't bother me. The only time it was brought up was when it was used as a plot point.

I did, however, enjoy throwaway lines that would tell us who did what in the past and where they were. But really, once the character was off the show, they were GONE.

#10

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 6, 2012 @ 1:00 PM

"Killerz" should have definitely gotten a follow-up. We all know that girl was going to kill again, and I would have loved for Jack to get the chance to say "I told you so" to that judge and the stupid mother.

I would have also liked to see a followup to episodes like "Sheltered" and the one where a guy bludgeoned some health insurance offical to death just because he didn't approve of some experimental treatment for his sick daughter (can't remember the name), only because I was unsatisfied with how the episodes ended. I'm sorry, but I didn't feel sorry for that kid in "Sheltered"; even if he was kidnapped and brainwashed, he still shot innocent people with a sniper gun. IMO, he was damaged beyond redemption.

#11

Maherjunkie

Maherjunkie

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female

Posted Nov 9, 2012 @ 12:29 PM

I can't believe Olivet and the judge was so stupid in "Killerz".

#12

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female

Posted Nov 9, 2012 @ 4:44 PM

How did "Killerz" end? I only saw the British version where the Jack-character didn't necessarily want to go easy on the killer but felt that he should listen to the victim's mother. In the end, though, the judge didn't care and even though the prosecution was seeking therapy and some leniency the judge sentenced the killer to a pretty harsh sentence. That implies that she will either stay the same or - probably - get worse but not for years and years.

#13

Scorpiosrule

Scorpiosrule

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted Nov 9, 2012 @ 5:23 PM

Princess, the killer in the original "Killerz" was a true sociopathic killer, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Olivet and the Judge thought that at 10, there was still hope for her, but Jack wanted to put her in jail; as the episode ended, you see the killer look at another little boy, with a smug smile on her face, as if saying "there's my next victim."

I can't recall all the details of the UK version, but do remember they made her somewhat victimized. The one here? Nothing redeeming about her. Her mother was not an uneducated woman whose lack of knowledge of the law was used against her. She had a father, who was in jail, and who gave consent to McCoy to get her committed. So, yeah, Jack wanted her to be put away.

#14

Maherjunkie

Maherjunkie

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female

Posted Nov 12, 2012 @ 10:41 AM

As soon as I heard the mother say "She's my best friend!" I thought she ain't gonna change!"

#15

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 13, 2012 @ 1:46 PM

You know someone's a bad parent when they say that their child is their "best friend". Dear God that mother was a moron. That's the other reason why I wanted a followup to that episode; the mother was too stupid to live and deserved everything she would get.

#16

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 3, 2012 @ 9:07 AM

I just thought of another one that should have gotten a follow-up: "Bodies." I hated how that stupid lawyer wouldn't do the right thing and give up the bodies just to be a martyr for the legal system. I would have loved to see a follow up that had him crack or at the families of the victims go vigilante on him if and when he ever got out of jail.

#17

SoManyWays

SoManyWays

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 3, 2012 @ 8:13 PM

Really, how dare someone have principles?

I seriously disliked McCoy during that whole episode.

#18

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 4, 2012 @ 6:00 AM

Having principles is one thing but I think that when they lead you to refuse to disclose a lot of bodies and give the families any sense of peace or closure then he's taking it too far.

#19

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 4, 2012 @ 1:08 PM

My sentiments exactly, Princess Aldrea. As Jack pointed out, the only person that guy was protecting was himself and his career as a lawyer. His client had already been sentenced to death. If the moron wanted to keep lawyer/client confidentiality, he shouldn't have asked to see the bodies. What a dipshit.

He deserved everything he got. The right thing to do in that situation was give up the bodies, even if it meant sacrificing his career, and he chose not too. There is nothing right or principled about that.

#20

azzurro

azzurro

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 4, 2012 @ 3:49 PM

I think that when they lead you to refuse to disclose a lot of bodies and give the families any sense of peace or closure then he's taking it too far.

I think the idea of getting "peace" or "closure" about the murder of a loved one is largely a myth. You move on, that's all. Or not. I can understand the families' point of view, but I doubt that the revelation of where the bodies were would actually have changed much in any of their lives, and in some instances it might actually have made them feel worse.

The lawyer was stupid for asking to see the bodies, but IMO he was right to stand his ground on principle and not give in to the bullying of the DA's office.

Edited by azzurro, Dec 4, 2012 @ 11:47 PM.


#21

SoManyWays

SoManyWays

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 5, 2012 @ 1:15 AM

There was another episode which also dealt with attorney/client privilege: Jamie Ross was a defense attorney who knew that her client had committed the crime for which another man had been sentenced to death. She refused to testify about what her client told her. Did Jack rage about her decision? Did he go to extreme measures to coerce her cooperation? No, he did not. And when, in the end, she was brought before the bar committee for breaking her client's confidence to the extent she did, it wasn't presented as some outrageous travesty of justice.

And that was when a man's life was at stake.

What's at stake here? On the one hand, a legal right. On the other hand, hordes of anguished families members. Far more than the number of victims. So even if he had talked, most of those people would be no better off than before. And for the lucky "winners" of the lottery, whose daughters had been killed by this guy? "Congratulations, here's your daughter's decayed remains, we were able to determine that she died horribly and by the way, she's still dead."

The right of attorney/client privilege balanced against the right to life? That's a battle between two principles. But there's no right to feel better about a crappy situation.

#22

aquarian1

aquarian1

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:MN
  • Interests:Improv, Mojo-Kickball, Kickboxing, Cooking, Baking

Posted Dec 5, 2012 @ 9:11 AM

I think the idea of getting "peace" or "closure" about the murder of a loved one is largely a myth. You move on, that's all. Or not. I can understand the families' point of view, but I doubt that the revelation of where the bodies were would actually have changed much in any of their lives, and in some instances it might actually have made them feel worse.

"Congratulations, here's your daughter's decayed remains, we were able to determine that she died horribly and by the way, she's still dead."

I think there's more to it than that. Having an actual body helps with finality and acceptance. Being told a loved one is dead, but hey there's no body or evidence can make it hard to accept and if you do it is still hard to move on. And even if/when you do (accept and/or move on), a lot of people like to have the actual remains for the family plot or for a proper funeral. Without all that, yes you may have some hope they are still alive, but also a lot of worry about and that not knowing for sure can drive someone crazy.

However, I think the bigger issue was the lawyer asking to see (or agreeing to see) the bodies in the first place. If he hadn't done that, there wouldn't be much of an issue. I actually felt for him, standing up for his principles, and the principles of the whole profession, and didn't think he should be in jail for long (held in contempt?). But why did he go see the bodies?

Edited by aquarian1, Dec 5, 2012 @ 9:11 AM.


#23

Maherjunkie

Maherjunkie

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female

Posted Dec 5, 2012 @ 10:54 AM

I don't know what happened to my first post but I agree Aquarian. A relative stole my dog out of meanness and I would still give anything to just know SOMETHING.

#24

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 5, 2012 @ 1:15 PM

Sorry about your dog Maherjunkie

But why did he go see the bodies?



Why would he WANT to see the bodies? Curiousity?! That's another reason why I didn't feel sorry for that guy.

Closure or not, those victims deserved proper graves and not to rot in some sick freaks basement.

Good points, SoManyWays, but the difference between him and Jamie was that Jamie actually tried to do something about it by anonymously calling the judge and telling him the wrong man was in jail. All that lawyer did was basically lock up the bodies and keep his mouth shut.

#25

Kitty Bac

Kitty Bac

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 21, 2013 @ 4:05 PM

I think the idea of getting "peace" or "closure" about the murder of a loved one is largely a myth. You move on, that's all. Or not. I can understand the families' point of view, but I doubt that the revelation of where the bodies were would actually have changed much in any of their lives, and in some instances it might actually have made them feel worse.


I hope to never have first-hand experience, but I believe that I would like to have a proper burial for my loved ones. Rather than imagine them rotting in a forest, thrown in the river, or left in a dump - you get the idea. I'd probably never get over it - or have closure - like you said, but at least I'd have the peace of mind of having them buried.