Nice Law and Order Ending

stevew · 04-05-2005, 09:58 PM

We find the defendant
(spoiler space cause im an EST Elitist)

"Produced by Dick Wolf"

Fuck this shit, im not going out of my way to watch this anymore.

DaddyTorgo · 04-05-2005, 10:06 PM

i missed it. what was the context of that? I mean I get that it didn't give you a guilty/not guilty but what was the case? What were they trying him for? It might make sense somewhat, if it was something controversial...

stevew · 04-05-2005, 10:07 PM

It was a rape trial. Still, i invest all the time in the episode, which wasnt even that great IMO, and you cant tell me what the fuck the jury verdict is? L&O can lick my ass.

stevew · 04-05-2005, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George W Bush

is it because she's a lesbian?

Hell, even that would be okay. Just none of this no jury verdict bullshit.

stevew · 04-05-2005, 10:09 PM

Youd think the president would be able to get on the right Dynamic server BTW

Joe · 04-05-2005, 10:09 PM

is it because she's a lesbian?

DaddyTorgo · 04-05-2005, 10:10 PM

well that does sound pretty stupid then. i have no idea since i didn't see it.

Peregrine · 04-05-2005, 10:35 PM

I thought it was one of the better SVU episodes I've seen. The point was to show how so many rape cases just boil down to he-said, she-said, and there isn't a lot of definitive proof to go one way or the other. So in that episode (I saw it the first time it was on, a while ago) they just played up the kind of things that happen in a normal rape trial, instead of the usual Law and Order "everything's nicely tied up" at the end. Pretty neat idea. All the way up to the end the cops, and the viewers were unsure who was really telling the truth and what happened, so when it came to the verdict they just didn't show it.

JonInMiddleGA · 04-05-2005, 10:43 PM

IIRC, this is a gimmick that has been used at least once in the series before (the original L&O, in the Sam Waterson era if memory serves).

vex · 04-05-2005, 10:44 PM

That was an old one.

DaddyTorgo · 04-05-2005, 11:16 PM

oh wait. i feel like i might have seen this one. it didn't really bother me at all.

stevew · 04-05-2005, 11:18 PM

Wait, this was SUV. Okay, its not Wednesday then, after all.

Tigercat · 04-05-2005, 11:19 PM

In the original airing they had people go online to vote innocent or guilty. Basically they were trying to play the possibilities down the middle to make the viewer part of the jury and to show how difficult such cases can be.

Personally, I think a notguilty verdict would seem to be pretty obvious based on the evidence given and the way the two presented themselves in the courtroom(although not necessarily based on if one thinks he did it or not), but in a case like it will come down to jury makeup.

Schmidty · 04-05-2005, 11:25 PM

Ok, I'll be deleting this one from Tivo before my wife can force me to watch it. I dislike the show as it is.

kingnebwsu · 04-06-2005, 12:58 AM

There's no way they could have voted guilty. When I watched it the first time I bet that he did it, but no way I could convict him. But yeah, now that it's a rerun they should definitely show an ending of some kind.

04-05-2005, 10:43 PM	#9
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	IIRC, this is a gimmick that has been used at least once in the series before (the original L&O, in the Sam Waterson era if memory serves). __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

04-05-2005, 11:25 PM	#14
Schmidty Coordinator Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Early, TX	Ok, I'll be deleting this one from Tivo before my wife can force me to watch it. I dislike the show as it is. __________________ Just beat the devil out of it!!! - Bob Ross

04-05-2005, 10:06 PM	#2
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	i missed it. what was the context of that? I mean I get that it didn't give you a guilty/not guilty but what was the case? What were they trying him for? It might make sense somewhat, if it was something controversial...

04-05-2005, 10:07 PM	#3
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	It was a rape trial. Still, i invest all the time in the episode, which wasnt even that great IMO, and you cant tell me what the fuck the jury verdict is? L&O can lick my ass.

04-05-2005, 10:09 PM	#5
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Youd think the president would be able to get on the right Dynamic server BTW

04-05-2005, 10:09 PM	#6
Joe Pro Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Minneapolis	is it because she's a lesbian?

04-05-2005, 10:10 PM	#7
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	well that does sound pretty stupid then. i have no idea since i didn't see it.

04-05-2005, 10:35 PM	#8
Peregrine Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Cary, NC	I thought it was one of the better SVU episodes I've seen. The point was to show how so many rape cases just boil down to he-said, she-said, and there isn't a lot of definitive proof to go one way or the other. So in that episode (I saw it the first time it was on, a while ago) they just played up the kind of things that happen in a normal rape trial, instead of the usual Law and Order "everything's nicely tied up" at the end. Pretty neat idea. All the way up to the end the cops, and the viewers were unsure who was really telling the truth and what happened, so when it came to the verdict they just didn't show it.

04-05-2005, 10:44 PM	#10
vex Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tulsa	That was an old one.

04-05-2005, 11:16 PM	#11
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	oh wait. i feel like i might have seen this one. it didn't really bother me at all.

04-05-2005, 11:18 PM	#12
stevew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the yo'	Wait, this was SUV. Okay, its not Wednesday then, after all.

04-05-2005, 11:19 PM	#13
Tigercat College Starter Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Federal Way, WA	In the original airing they had people go online to vote innocent or guilty. Basically they were trying to play the possibilities down the middle to make the viewer part of the jury and to show how difficult such cases can be. Personally, I think a notguilty verdict would seem to be pretty obvious based on the evidence given and the way the two presented themselves in the courtroom(although not necessarily based on if one thinks he did it or not), but in a case like it will come down to jury makeup.

04-06-2005, 12:58 AM	#15
kingnebwsu College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Ohio	There's no way they could have voted guilty. When I watched it the first time I bet that he did it, but no way I could convict him. But yeah, now that it's a rerun they should definitely show an ending of some kind.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)