Rogue


Just watched S14-Ep1 Rogue for the second time, agent Torres seems to make more sense than the clown they made out of DiNozzo, I really liked him and Quinn, the show seems to be more realistic than in the past, that banter wirh Tony and everyone else was getting sooooo tired, glad I watched it again, I have a different out look on the show,
Did anyone else feel the same way?

oh, good, the Israelis are back


reply

There is more banter than ever.

I do not care who needs an apartment. I have been around long enough to find housing when I have needed to do so. It is not such a major FN mission that it involves all the co-workers.

I do not care who is dating whom, except that if Palmer, Bishop and Abby all got severe STDs and had to go on permanent disability, that would be nice.

I do not care about the FBI guy living in gibbs house. He has a huge house that is empty. Why does he not let the guy sleep in a bedroom?? His wife and daughter are long dead and not using their rooms.

reply

I know that I mentioned that I was ready to *hate* Torres, so I was completely surprised by how much I actually liked him. I don't know who is responsible for WV's portrayal of the character, but they deserve some props. Wilmer was one of the main reasons I gave up on Minority Report, there was something so sleazy about the character he played, that I just quit after only 2-3 episodes. I *thought* it was just the actor, but someone has convinced him to tone down and lighten up. It's really quite a transformation.

_________

No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.

reply

I wasn't ready to *hate* him b/c I don't remember seeing him in anything else,
but I too was completely surprised by how much I actually liked him, Tony's acting sometimes made me cringe, but Torres seemed to fit right in with no childish pranks, however, in later episodes the writers kinda took care of that, why can't they leave well enough alone?

oh, good, the Israelis are back

reply

In always wonder how much input actors have in the characters they play. Casting directors are famous for looking for a "type." Get me someone like....and then there is a cadre of "character actors" that they choose from, already having an idea about who or what the character will be. But when someone is hired to be an ongoing cast member, are they allowed to stretch from their usual roles, or were they hired to be the joker, the nerd, the Latin lover and so on.

What my question is, are we seeing Wilmer acting like he always does because that is the one note he plays, or did someone decide the want a Wilmer-type character, and he is stuck being a testosterone driven jerk again. My hope is that he will bond with the other male agent, and we won't see the juvenile behavior forever, just an interlude of comic (to someone, not me....) relief.

_________

No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.

reply

In always wonder how much input actors have in the characters they play. Casting directors are famous for looking for a "type." Get me someone like....and then there is a cadre of "character actors" that they choose from, already having an idea about who or what the character will be. But when someone is hired to be an ongoing cast member, are they allowed to stretch from their usual roles, or were they hired to be the joker, the nerd, the Latin lover and so on.

What my question is, are we seeing Wilmer acting like he always does because that is the one note he plays, or did someone decide the want a Wilmer-type character, and he is stuck being a testosterone driven jerk again. My hope is that he will bond with the other male agent, and we won't see the juvenile behavior forever, just an interlude of comic (to someone, not me....) relief.



If you will allow me to attempt to explain.

As an actor, both stage and a small amount of screen, and as a writer, I have sold a few of my writings, (I've earned less than $2000 over my lifetime), I have some experience in this area.

Writers write in multiple forms, novels, short stories, poems, non-fiction, informative, plays, screen plays, TV dramas and comedies, short films, commercial, internet blogs, magazine articles. The opportunities are vast and various.

For those who write fiction even those fields are vast, and the control a writer has on his or her own work will also vary. Someone who has a known name and success can write what they want and forbid an editor from making any major changes to their work. A first time novelist will have five or six people sending reams of notes to "fix" their work.

When a writer writes a story, they create the environment, the plot, the characters, everything. Therefore, the characters do what the writer wants them to do.

On stage, in TV, and even in Film, this is not how it works. While the writer creates the story, the originality depends upon if this is their own work, or if they were hired to write what a producer wants written. (Known as work for hire). In Film and TV, this is the standard.

When I've written and directed what I've written for stage, I convey my idea for the character to each of the actors and help them portray what I've written. I do listen to ideas, and if I think they help tell the story, we go with those ideas.

Established plays by known authors have history, and therefore are usually handled in a traditional manner. However, there are times when a director/producer wishes to experiment with a concept and re-imagines the play, using input from the cast and other creative minds, like the set decorator, lighting designer, etc.

Films are usually run by the director, he or she has the final say as to how the script is written, and how the actors perform. Each director is different and some allow a free flow of ideas, while other stick to strict interpretation, all ranges between are seen.

Donald Bellisario created NCIS. He created the characters, the setting, the theme. He then looked around for whom he thought would be the best actor to fill out his idea for each characters. At first, Don Johnson was considered for the roll of Gibbs, then Scott Bakula. But Bellisario decided to go with Harmon. While vacationing in Australia, Weatherly ran into Bellisario and his family and had dinner with them one night. (this is from an interview I heard just after the show started). Weatherly convinced Bellisario to cast him in the roll of Tony, and since Bellisario even states that Michael embodied the essence of DiNozzo, he went in that direction (if you watch interviews of MW you will see that he is a clown most of the time). People, cast and crew, all comment about how PP doesn't act, she simply is herself when she portrays Abby.

As time goes on in a TV series, each character usually evolves into a version of the actor portraying the character. Thus, PP is Abby. MW is Dinozzo, now Bull, MH is Gibbs.

The show runner comes up with the ideas for each episode and a group of writers, anywhere from 5 to 9, will work on the scripts, usually in teams of two or three, and will switch off partners during the season.

There is always input from higher ups, studio executives, advertisers (they ultimately pay the bills, and money talks), network executives, and so one.

So, who creates the character? The creator of the show. Do the actors have a say in the development of the character? To an extent, yes.

Hope that sheds some light on your inquiry.





It's called a remote control. It has a channel up button, a channel down button, and a power off button. Get familiar with this device, learn to use it.

How can we expect the world to trust in a loving God, when His followers can be so full of hate?

reply

There is always input from higher ups, studio executives, advertisers (they ultimately pay the bills, and money talks), network executives, and so one.

phillipds777
a short extract from a long but very interesting post, I'm not in that business but if I was it would just be to build the sets, but I like knowing about how all it all works, I pulled that excerpt out b/c it reminded me of what my relative told me, he is the producer of one of the most popular (and dumbest) sitcoms on TV today, and every time I get to visit him we always talk about the business, mainly b/c I drill him (but he doesn't mind) I remember what he told me about the network executives, the short of it was, basically a show is written, a pilot is made and if ABC CBS etc. like it they buy it and ultimately own it. so like you say, There is always input from higher ups he once took me on a filming which was a closed set (no audience) I got to see how it worked, very interesting, and I got to meet some of the stars including the star of the show who I just love her so much, got to take a picture with her, it was the thrill of the century,
but getting back to you, you said you only made a couple thousand in writing, what about acting? still doing parts in anything? if you're still in it I wish you a lot of luck, I don't know if this is apropos, but break a leg

oh, good, the Israelis are back




reply

a short extract from a long but very interesting post


Thank you, a bumbling attempt to use what limited knowledge I have to help answer her inquiry. Check your inbox.



It's called a remote control. It has a channel up button, a channel down button, and a power off button. Get familiar with this device, learn to use it.

How can we expect the world to trust in a loving God, when His followers can be so full of hate?

reply

You know, I just realized my "thanks" to that post never posted! So, thank you again for taking the time to respond; it was interesting!

_________

No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.

reply

You are welcome.

Have a Merry Christmas.



It's called a remote control. It has a channel up button, a channel down button, and a power off button. Get familiar with this device, learn to use it.

How can we expect the world to trust in a loving God, when His followers can be so full of hate?

reply

kinda reminds me of how some people hated Kate so much (most of them Ziva fans) that they thought it was the actress so they started hating Sasha...but then they were totally shocked when they watched Sasha in 'Rizzoli & Isles' and realized that it was just the character of Kate that was the problem to them.

reply

Well, I really didn't watch That 70's Show, but I caught bits and pieces in repeat. He played a very similar character as on Minority Report. I was concerned that he was being type cast because he actually was that type. He still may be, but he has presented a much more likable character on NCIS.
_________

No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.

reply

I agree I like Torres and Quinn, especially Torres...I'm actually surprised by just how much I like them and how fast they have grown on me and settled into the show.

I honestly could not take Tony seriously most of the time and find him rather unrealistic and too immature as a federal agent...he was too much of a clown and an overgrown frat boy, it was quite hard for me to take him seriously as an agent. In comparison, Torres seems more mature and sensible and more convincing as an agent, and he is much more tolerable to me than Tony ever was, and his character just seems more realistic.

reply

YOU'RE NOT IN YOUR COUNTRY AND NEITHER IS HE !!!!
That was the real Tony we saw 1% of the time, MW had some good moments on the show, but the writers wouldn't let up with the clowning, he even made a funny remark about Sonny Crockett when the SecNav's daughter was abducted, really poor taste, however, he's not that way on "Bull" but on that show, it's like he's acting in slow motion with his nose pointed to the sky,

oh, good, the Israelis are back

reply

When they started tweaking the Dinozzo character , it was the beginning of a slow spiral downward. Still I really took to the Alex and Torres characters though some of season 14 episodes were weak.

The banter was due to writing going downhill . In my opinion , Tony could still banter , but he has to have good material.

The show will never be what it was in seasons 1-12. I just hope it quits shooting itself in the foot - that's what gets old with me.

reply