Re: Blue Bloods "Two of a Kind" 5/10/2024 (was: What Did You Watch? 2024-05-10 (Friday))

On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:53:24 -0700
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:37:39 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
 

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

Blue Bloods - the penultimate episode of season 14A. Season 14B
will apparently be just 4 episodes unless the cast and producers
of the show manage to convince CBS to un-cancel it. Frankly -
forgive the inadvertent pun - if I was another network with some
holes in my Friday night schedule, I'd look seriously at picking
this up. Apparently, the ratings are still very strong (despite
the ever-weaker writing) and everyone still wants to do it so why
not?    

 

As for plot, we see the first time in a very long time where
Danny's plumper son finally got something to do but sit at the
dinner table. After being robbed on campus, he and his dad set
out to catch the robber. Also, Eddie and her partner untangle a
landlord-tenant dispute that turns out to be more complicated
than it appears. Erin discovers a legal aid attorney is not
giving his client good advice and works to take down the attorney
which has unexpected consequences for the client. Jamie and Joe
Hill actually engage in some off-duty fisticuffs - with each
other! - and Frank has to figure out how to make them get along.
  

 
Gawd this was awful. None of the stories had anything resembling a
plot. Is Sean supposed to be at Columbia?  

 
I don't know NYC well-enough to say. Apparently, Sean's campus is
right beside the Arc de Triomphe knockoff, which he called
W-something Square, but I have no idea if that is anywhere near
Columbia. 

 
It’s 8 miles depending on the route you take. It seems unlikely
somebody would be walking home that way much less everybody walking
home that way.
 
 
 I didn't

see any encampments or "activists" in keffiyehs but they might have
filmed before that started.
 

The student robbery plot was
ridiculous. Danny tells Sean to wait till the next night, and all
he's going to have Sean do is wait at the police station for the
identity parade. Instead Sean goes out that night, interferes with
another robbery in exactly the same spot, recognizes the robber as
an employee and gets stabbed. The victim thinks Sean saved her and
he gets a date. Fortunately for the purpose of Danny not having to
do any investigating, the perpetrator returns to work and gets
arrested. Based on the Law of Conservation of Characters, the
mastermind is the head of campus security who had recruited ex
cons for campus jobs then told them whom to rob. Not sure how he
was tracking student movement.
 

He probably had stuck secret trackers on all the most-promising
"marks".
 

Wow this script goes out of its way to make Edit massively stupid.
In the landlord-tenant dispute, once again, Edit immediately
sympathized with the landlady who claimed the tenant had
threatened her on several occassions but never once filed a
complaint nor did she try to force the tenant to move. She also
lied to police about her wherabouts. The case is blown wide open
because Edit and Badillo have found all of the stolen furniture
and personal effects in a storage locker rented by the tenants.
This would have required a moving truck that no one saw despite
the florist across the street watching every movement.
 
I had no idea Edit had access to Penelope's couch database, now
updated to include storage space rental agreements.
 

Yeah, that was a particularly ridiculous moment. There's no way they
had sufficient justification to drop everything and search all the
storage locker places for something in the name of the couple or
landlady. That would have taken days and probably a team of
officers. No way a supervisor signs off on that unless there is
someone or something very valuable being stashed. Edit didn't know
that ANYTHING was stashed; she apparently just had a hunch.
 

The wife was setting up the landlady out of revenge for the affair
she had with her husband, wrecking their marriage. Edit helpfully
opines that the husband, only, was at fault. Last I looked, it
took two to cheat. 

 
I just took Edit's remark to mean that, of the two of them, husband
and wife, the husband was wholly at fault.
 

The only thing they can think of to charge the wife with is
making a false police report.
 

 I can't think of anything else she did that would be a crime.
 

Erin's story is beyond awful. She completely sympathizes with a
criminal who is facing numerous "possession of" charges as a
getaway driver, and offers the guy a ridiculous plea bargain,
which he rejects. Erin raises an objection at arraignment to the
failure to plead guilty.
 
Can she do that? Obviously the defendant has a right to trial.
 

I took her remarks as a strongly-worded suggestion to the lawyer,
rather than an objection per se. I don't know if having that
conversation in front of the judge as a sidebar was appropriate.
Perhaps she was hoping the judge would take her side.
 

The defendant keeps insisting that he's innocent, that he had no
idea what his co-conspirator was going to put into his car. Well,
he KNEW it was a burglarly, so whatever was going to be put into
his car would be stolen goods. That's kind of how burglarly works.
 

Agreed. The defendant is NOT innocent, he's just not guilty of as
much as the other guy. 

 
If he hadn’t been guilty, Erin wouldn’t have been trying to get him
released.
 
 

 

The defense lawyer is representing both conspirators but this
defendant is unaware of the enormous ethical conflict. Somehow his
fighting his own charges is better for the other defendant? It
makes no sense. 

 
The other crook was his best friend from college or something.
 
 

 

I suspect the lawyer was going to come up with some evidence that
would paint the black guy as the major offender and the other guy
as just a small fish who should be let go: basically a role
reversal of reality.

Surely the two men would have been tried simultaneously and the
lawyer representing both couldn't have been hidden. Even if both
defendants waived conflict, the judge sure as hell would have said
something.
 
For no particular reason, Joe Hill and Jamie get into a stupid
fight. Jamie is being such an ass that Joe is less unsympathetic.
Franks threatens to make them ride together in uniform in the
highest crime beat at night but they end up walking during
daylight on a street without crime.
 

Well, they did go out at least one night when they caught the kid
stealing the air fryer for his mom's present. The scene where they
were together in uniform in daylight *might* have been when they
were making their way to 1PP to find out that Frank was letting
them off the hook.

 
I forgot about the air fryer. That made no sense. First they left the
stolen air fryer just lying there in the alley. Either give it to the
kids mother or give it back to the person it was stolen from. Don’t
just abandon it! Or take it in for, you know, evidence!
 
So they take a picture of the kids ID in case they wanna let him go
and then they drag him away in handcuffs. Why did they need a picture
of his ID?
 
 

I think I hit the lowlights. Was Baez even on episode? I don't
recall. 

 
I believe I caught a glimpse of her being there when they arrested
the Security Manager at the campus (or his minion). I think she had
a cliche throwaway line but if you blinked, you missed it.
 

 
Why is no one reading my reviews??!?!?
 

I certainly DO read your reviews - at least for shows I watch or am
curious about - I just didn't see one for Friday's episode of Blue
Bloods. If you had a separate post on this episode, I didn't see it
before writing mine. In fact, I *still* don't see it.


--
Rhino