![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Two rambles on the Leverage finale
Jun. 26th, 2020 09:12 pmSo I finally got to the finale of Leverage. Which, I'd sort of gotten accidentally spoiled for just about everything that happened in the last five minutes of it, lol, but I'd tried to ignore that and the episode itself was a lovely set of callbacks to the pilot as well as a few other episodes (it felt like the serious version of The Rashomon Job, in some ways, with the revisions).
However, when I actually saw the last five minutes, there were bits I loved - but also hated. So let's start with what I loved.
I loved the proposal. Unquestionably so. Nate and Sophie's arc has been complex and beautiful, but I felt it was always going to head there, and it was very satisfying to see it. I look forward (hopefully) to reading fics of Maggie's reaction (because I love how maturely they deal with each other) to what they do for a wedding/etc. I'm sure there have to be a few written.
The rest of it, on the other hand… Do I think Parker's the right choice for the next mastermind? Absolutely. She's the only one who can calmly, rationally, plan things out the way Nate can (that line of Sophie's in The Inside Job was a lovely foreshadowing of her potential), perhaps better because she doesn't let her feelings get in the way of her thinking. (She spent so much of her life ignoring her feelings that she's a pro at doing that.) Hardison can't - he's absolutely brilliant, but he lets his feelings influence his actions too much. Should Parker ever be seriously injured or hurt on a con, I think there would have to be someone just yelling at him to keep thinking and doing his job because he could easily fall apart. And Eliot doesn't manipulate as well, plus he wants to protect. He can't lead and protect at the same time.
But what bothers me the most about it is that I feel like it's too soon to send Nate into retirement. Yeah, they talk about it throughout S5, there's bits of hints like the whole "seeing only the bad in people" bit in The D.B. Cooper Job, or the bit where Sophie asks what if eventually comes too late. But I don't think he's ready to quit entirely, and for all that Sophie's "I love directing", I think she still likes grifting for cons. Do they need a break? Oh yeah, I'm all for a nice long honeymoon. But I would love to see Parker and Nate working as equals. Planning together, each taking turns on point for a con, etc. Plus who will be the thief? There are situations where they can't have the mastermind unable to talk to everyone else because she's too busy secretly breaking into a vault without making a sound. The show's a five-hander and the cons show it. And none of them are up to Sophie's level of grifting. Parker's improved, but again, Parker can't do it all. Eliot's limited in his grifting roles because he's too honest, ironically, and Hardison was warned by Nate not to get cocky because that is one of his faults - and cockiness when grifting got them into big trouble in The Ice Man Job. Hardison's improved a lot, but he'll never be the grifter Sophie is. Parker's the only one who can do the acrobatics and she's still the expert at cracking safes and things like that, and she's not too old to still do all of that, she's got years left before she needs to have a replacement for the physical aspects of her role as thief.
And then there's Hardison's "Leverage International" thing, which doesn't make sense to me in some ways. If they dump it onto the darknet, then anyone else can go take a run at the same bad guys - people who aren't necessarily as skilled, who will put them on guard, and then ruin the chances of taking them down. And if Parker's line "every crew from around the world's gonna want in with us" is the truth, then they wouldn't be dumping it on the darknet, because then everyone would have to come to them to work with them, otherwise why would they want in with them if they could just do things on their own? Plus there's the whole bit about the rest of the criminals all being, well, y'know, criminals. Consider that it took the Leverage team a whole season with Nate at the helm for them to be changed so that while they still resorted to some of their former tricks, it wasn't the same and they didn't want to keep them up, they recognized they had changed. The rest of the criminals in the world haven't been through that, and not all of them are good enough down deep to work with, so they'd have to do a lot of vetting and protecting against double-crossing and all of that. So there's some logic fail there, unless I'm missing something drastic.
I'm also bothered by the fact that they're splitting up the family. Nate and Sophie are Team Dad and Team Mom to some degree (I haven't looked at TV Tropes yet, lol, was trying to avoid spoilers - but I'm sure I'll see something to that effect there), and the show made it sound like they were just going to take off and the younger three would rarely see them. And yeah, they've learned to reach out, and Parker's really grown with her new friendship with Amy, for instance, but this is the only real family she's ever had. Archie claimed himself as her father but we've seen nothing from him since, and a girl always needs her mother in her life, even if she doesn't think she does. Plus I can't see the other two having much of family left either (Eliot's family clearly had issues, and his attempt to reconcile with his dad went nowhere, and Hardison has his Nana and I think a brother or so? but we never see them plus his Nana has to be getting old enough that she wouldn't live all that much longer). The last thing they need is to shrink the family they have. So I definitely don't like the idea that Nate and Sophie are taking off and not coming back. A wedding and extended honeymoon, yeah, but they'd better be back and part of everyone's lives. (The writers were even going to do that - John Rogers' blog outright says he was going to have them return for S6 if they had a S6.) I'll definitely be putting that in every single exchange letter, lol.
***Essay 2***
My second ramble is actually not as much at the show itself (writers' intentions notwithstanding), but at the fandom reaction. The scene where Eliot tells Nate he has everything he needs, thanks to Nate - what bothers me about that isn't the scene itself, because it's lovely and very much shows Eliot and who he is, but the fact that just about everyone - including the writers - automatically assume that means he's interested in a sexual relationship with both Parker and Hardison. (Mind you, I ship Eliot/Parker, but this is beside that point.) What bothers me about that is that it's essentially saying that for someone to be someone else's rock, their anchor, that they have to be interested in having sex with each other. And that makes me irritated bordering on angry, because sex is NOT the be-all-end-all. Sexual attraction does not define one's deepest bonds, ARGH! To repeat myself, the deepest bonds between two human beings do not have to be formed by having sex or being interested in having sex, and to say that they do is a slap in the face to all of us who have deliberately chosen to live without it for one reason or another. It's saying, "Sorry, you don't get to be as close to other human beings just because you don't get naked and make contact with each other's private parts."
What I've seen all along with Eliot is that he enjoys sex, yes, but he isn't hungry for a permanent sexual relationship; he's longing for a family to call home and to protect, for buddies he can count on and that he can die for if he needs to. It's the only thing that will help him live with the terrible things he has done (not that he's trying to atone so much, he doesn't think he can), and he's found that in Parker and Hardison, not as people he wants to kiss and sleep with (though I'm not averse to reading fics where he does that with Parker, because they get each other better than anyone else on the team ever could, I think), but as his anchor. He needs people to serve and protect to be able to live with himself each day, to have a purpose, and with the team, he does.
One test for the closest relationship in one's life would be - whose input would matter as to where you move? I spent a bit reading up on Boston marriages and romantic friendships and platonic lifemates awhile back, because they acknowledge the fact that in today's society, the only person people consult about where one moves is one's significant other. The automatic assumption is that a sexual relationship is the only one close enough to make that a factor. But when you look at the nonsexual options out there… then you have a broader perspective. And when you recognize that the team is all a family, bound by bonds closer than sex…
So that scene has to be read as OT3 only as long as you assume that sex must be a core element of the closest relationships. I think there's enough people out there that know it isn't to acknowledge the other possibilities. And I'm hoping there's a lot of fanfic out there that also acknowledges that. But realistically, fandom likes to talk about representation of this and that - but it's still overwhelmingly sexual, and to attempt to look at scenes from nonsexual perspectives tends to draw accusations of hate, particularly among the people who like to pride themselves at being so friendly towards this or that representation. *sigh* And most people seem to have reacted with a "yay, OT3s are so rarely represented" - but nonsexual bonds that deep, a platonic relationship that deep among several people to the point that their world is oriented around each other even if they aren't sleeping with each other (and that isn't affected if two of the three are having sex), that's even rarer, and I'm hoping I'm not the only one who wants to see that.
We'll see what I find as I read. I've got like 5,000 fics I haven't even seen the tags for yet, and while I'm skipping the crossovers with fandoms I don't know, and certain ships I just won't read, period, I'm checking out an awful lot.
However, when I actually saw the last five minutes, there were bits I loved - but also hated. So let's start with what I loved.
I loved the proposal. Unquestionably so. Nate and Sophie's arc has been complex and beautiful, but I felt it was always going to head there, and it was very satisfying to see it. I look forward (hopefully) to reading fics of Maggie's reaction (because I love how maturely they deal with each other) to what they do for a wedding/etc. I'm sure there have to be a few written.
The rest of it, on the other hand… Do I think Parker's the right choice for the next mastermind? Absolutely. She's the only one who can calmly, rationally, plan things out the way Nate can (that line of Sophie's in The Inside Job was a lovely foreshadowing of her potential), perhaps better because she doesn't let her feelings get in the way of her thinking. (She spent so much of her life ignoring her feelings that she's a pro at doing that.) Hardison can't - he's absolutely brilliant, but he lets his feelings influence his actions too much. Should Parker ever be seriously injured or hurt on a con, I think there would have to be someone just yelling at him to keep thinking and doing his job because he could easily fall apart. And Eliot doesn't manipulate as well, plus he wants to protect. He can't lead and protect at the same time.
But what bothers me the most about it is that I feel like it's too soon to send Nate into retirement. Yeah, they talk about it throughout S5, there's bits of hints like the whole "seeing only the bad in people" bit in The D.B. Cooper Job, or the bit where Sophie asks what if eventually comes too late. But I don't think he's ready to quit entirely, and for all that Sophie's "I love directing", I think she still likes grifting for cons. Do they need a break? Oh yeah, I'm all for a nice long honeymoon. But I would love to see Parker and Nate working as equals. Planning together, each taking turns on point for a con, etc. Plus who will be the thief? There are situations where they can't have the mastermind unable to talk to everyone else because she's too busy secretly breaking into a vault without making a sound. The show's a five-hander and the cons show it. And none of them are up to Sophie's level of grifting. Parker's improved, but again, Parker can't do it all. Eliot's limited in his grifting roles because he's too honest, ironically, and Hardison was warned by Nate not to get cocky because that is one of his faults - and cockiness when grifting got them into big trouble in The Ice Man Job. Hardison's improved a lot, but he'll never be the grifter Sophie is. Parker's the only one who can do the acrobatics and she's still the expert at cracking safes and things like that, and she's not too old to still do all of that, she's got years left before she needs to have a replacement for the physical aspects of her role as thief.
And then there's Hardison's "Leverage International" thing, which doesn't make sense to me in some ways. If they dump it onto the darknet, then anyone else can go take a run at the same bad guys - people who aren't necessarily as skilled, who will put them on guard, and then ruin the chances of taking them down. And if Parker's line "every crew from around the world's gonna want in with us" is the truth, then they wouldn't be dumping it on the darknet, because then everyone would have to come to them to work with them, otherwise why would they want in with them if they could just do things on their own? Plus there's the whole bit about the rest of the criminals all being, well, y'know, criminals. Consider that it took the Leverage team a whole season with Nate at the helm for them to be changed so that while they still resorted to some of their former tricks, it wasn't the same and they didn't want to keep them up, they recognized they had changed. The rest of the criminals in the world haven't been through that, and not all of them are good enough down deep to work with, so they'd have to do a lot of vetting and protecting against double-crossing and all of that. So there's some logic fail there, unless I'm missing something drastic.
I'm also bothered by the fact that they're splitting up the family. Nate and Sophie are Team Dad and Team Mom to some degree (I haven't looked at TV Tropes yet, lol, was trying to avoid spoilers - but I'm sure I'll see something to that effect there), and the show made it sound like they were just going to take off and the younger three would rarely see them. And yeah, they've learned to reach out, and Parker's really grown with her new friendship with Amy, for instance, but this is the only real family she's ever had. Archie claimed himself as her father but we've seen nothing from him since, and a girl always needs her mother in her life, even if she doesn't think she does. Plus I can't see the other two having much of family left either (Eliot's family clearly had issues, and his attempt to reconcile with his dad went nowhere, and Hardison has his Nana and I think a brother or so? but we never see them plus his Nana has to be getting old enough that she wouldn't live all that much longer). The last thing they need is to shrink the family they have. So I definitely don't like the idea that Nate and Sophie are taking off and not coming back. A wedding and extended honeymoon, yeah, but they'd better be back and part of everyone's lives. (The writers were even going to do that - John Rogers' blog outright says he was going to have them return for S6 if they had a S6.) I'll definitely be putting that in every single exchange letter, lol.
***Essay 2***
My second ramble is actually not as much at the show itself (writers' intentions notwithstanding), but at the fandom reaction. The scene where Eliot tells Nate he has everything he needs, thanks to Nate - what bothers me about that isn't the scene itself, because it's lovely and very much shows Eliot and who he is, but the fact that just about everyone - including the writers - automatically assume that means he's interested in a sexual relationship with both Parker and Hardison. (Mind you, I ship Eliot/Parker, but this is beside that point.) What bothers me about that is that it's essentially saying that for someone to be someone else's rock, their anchor, that they have to be interested in having sex with each other. And that makes me irritated bordering on angry, because sex is NOT the be-all-end-all. Sexual attraction does not define one's deepest bonds, ARGH! To repeat myself, the deepest bonds between two human beings do not have to be formed by having sex or being interested in having sex, and to say that they do is a slap in the face to all of us who have deliberately chosen to live without it for one reason or another. It's saying, "Sorry, you don't get to be as close to other human beings just because you don't get naked and make contact with each other's private parts."
What I've seen all along with Eliot is that he enjoys sex, yes, but he isn't hungry for a permanent sexual relationship; he's longing for a family to call home and to protect, for buddies he can count on and that he can die for if he needs to. It's the only thing that will help him live with the terrible things he has done (not that he's trying to atone so much, he doesn't think he can), and he's found that in Parker and Hardison, not as people he wants to kiss and sleep with (though I'm not averse to reading fics where he does that with Parker, because they get each other better than anyone else on the team ever could, I think), but as his anchor. He needs people to serve and protect to be able to live with himself each day, to have a purpose, and with the team, he does.
One test for the closest relationship in one's life would be - whose input would matter as to where you move? I spent a bit reading up on Boston marriages and romantic friendships and platonic lifemates awhile back, because they acknowledge the fact that in today's society, the only person people consult about where one moves is one's significant other. The automatic assumption is that a sexual relationship is the only one close enough to make that a factor. But when you look at the nonsexual options out there… then you have a broader perspective. And when you recognize that the team is all a family, bound by bonds closer than sex…
So that scene has to be read as OT3 only as long as you assume that sex must be a core element of the closest relationships. I think there's enough people out there that know it isn't to acknowledge the other possibilities. And I'm hoping there's a lot of fanfic out there that also acknowledges that. But realistically, fandom likes to talk about representation of this and that - but it's still overwhelmingly sexual, and to attempt to look at scenes from nonsexual perspectives tends to draw accusations of hate, particularly among the people who like to pride themselves at being so friendly towards this or that representation. *sigh* And most people seem to have reacted with a "yay, OT3s are so rarely represented" - but nonsexual bonds that deep, a platonic relationship that deep among several people to the point that their world is oriented around each other even if they aren't sleeping with each other (and that isn't affected if two of the three are having sex), that's even rarer, and I'm hoping I'm not the only one who wants to see that.
We'll see what I find as I read. I've got like 5,000 fics I haven't even seen the tags for yet, and while I'm skipping the crossovers with fandoms I don't know, and certain ships I just won't read, period, I'm checking out an awful lot.
