Leverage – Our wants and needs for season five

by Debbie McDuffee

After the 'Leverage' two-part finale's significant death, the CliqueClack team muses on what might come of this for season five ... and also just stuff we love want to see in 'Leverage' next season.

Debbie:

Thanks to commenter Ali Kat, we know via John Rogers’ blog that Jimmy Ford is definitely dead. This makes me a little sad, because I liked the character and I think they could have mined a lot more goodness from it. However, this is likely the opportunity I’ve been waiting for to see some real character growth in Nate, something that was so well done in season one and then just … stopped. I’m still not sure I care much about Nate and Sophie, but I do want to see Nate stop drinking — can you imagine the creative cons that will come out of this man sober? Season four ended on such a high note that if they can keep up this momentum, we’re in for a fantastically entertaining season five.

Brittany:

Not so much in that vein, but a general observation:

I am really glad Timothy Hutton decided to do this show. I have to admit that I was only somewhat familiar with his film work, but I’ve really become a fan of his through Leverage. It’s a treat to watch him do what he does and I’m glad that I get that opportunity every week as opposed to whenever a next flick comes out.

As far as next season goes, does anyone else wish they’d dispense with these serial arcs already? The first time there was a season-long plot I was intrigued. But it seems like that’s become part and parcel of the show now and I’m just not that interested. I think it could do just fine with the ‘cons of the week’ and the character subplots … we don’t need to have a ‘man behind the curtain’ every season. But I think TV as a whole is way too attached to the concept of overarching mythology anyway.

Ivey:

I dunno … I kind of feel the same way I did before the finale:

“Now bringing back Saul Rubinek‘s Victor Dubenich could be a horse of a completely different color — but only if this plot arc extends beyond the season finale (keep in mind for a second that Dubenich being the puppet master completely marginalizes Latimer). If the audience had known for several weeks that the team’s first victim was pulling the strings, causing their world to tighten down on them, it would have made so much more of an impact when Jimmy Ford was killed. Create an enemy whose menace is a match for Nate’s resourcefulness, and you’ve got something really interesting. I hope that’s where this storyline is going, because if Dubenich is defeated in the finale, it would be a complete waste of a pretty awesome idea.”

Leon Rippy‘s Latimer character, and his whole season long arc completely marginalized by Dubenich? Check.

Dubenich (seemingly) killed off, killing with him the impact of a bringing back an enemy from the past (and basically preventing them from ever doing it again)? Check.

Nate and the team escape again completely unscathed, making them con-people-superheroes? Check.

Yeah, they should stay far, far away from doing serialized storylines.

Debbie:

OK, Ivey … I agree with you, and then I don’t. Some of the season-long story arcs have been a bust, I grant you that. The first season’s Sterling was near-perfect, though, and in a way, it would be a shame to see them quit trying to match it. I also think that even though this season’s arc was weak throughout the season, it brought a lot to the table for the last two episodes, especially the finale.

However (and here’s that strange part where I agree with Ivey), if there’s any season to drop the story arc, it would be season five. I can see it working perfectly. Because of the obvious opportunity for character growth, they’d only need the cons of the week (though it would be OK if some of them stretched two or three weeks) and the character interactions to make it work. I’ve often felt this way about House — just give me the weekly formula and the characters, and forget about tossing House in jail or rehab or any other of the contrived plots that crop up every sweeps and just stick to the basics. That could definitely be an ace in the hole for Leverage‘s season five.

Ivey:

Maybe it is all perspective then, because I never thought of Sterling’s four appearances in the first season as a serialized arc.

Brittany:

I’m with Ivey on that. Yes, he kept coming back, but I didn’t really see an ongoing story there.

Now, finding out last night that Maggie might have had a little thing for Sterling was kinda funny.

Debbie:

Well, I have dubbed the first season’s story arc “Sterling” becauseof my undying love, but I really mean the whole insurance company thing with Nate’s son, which tied into the Sterling appearances. It was definitely the most developed of any of the story arcs.

Ivey:

No, definitely … I guess what I really meant to say is that I hadn’t thought of it that way until you talked about it.

I loved Sterling early on (though, apparently not as much as Deb did … and to think Mark Sheppard looks nothing like Chris O’Donnell!) but he, too grew less and less interesting as time wore on. Sure, he’s still the best antagonist the show has at this point, when he’s actually, you know, being an antagonist.

Debbie:

OK, season five: name one thing you’d like to see and one thing you think we definitely will see.

Ivey:

What I’d like to see: Eliot doing more than A) Bickering with Hardison, B) Commiserating with Sophie about Nate or C) Telling Nate that he has his back.

What I expect to see: Well, other than A, B and C (which I’ve got no problem seeing, because I’m a fan of that too), I expect the Hardison/Parker relationship to continue to move along. I think they’ve got the pace of the relationship working perfectly, so they should continue with the “slow but steady wins the race” mindset.

Debbie:

Since I’m a big fan of past characters coming back, I’d like to see Maggie and Chaos back again, for sure, but you may be right that they’ve taken most of the allure away from Sterling. I’m not sure they could go anywhere but down with that reappearance.

I expect to see character growth from Nate, and judging by the success of the more unique episodes this season, like “The Office Job,” “The Girls’ Night Out Job” and “The Boys’ Night Out Job,” I’m betting we’ll see more outside the box themed episodes.

Brittany:

I’m with Deb on expecting more character growth from Nate, which is fine because that’s exactly what I want to see, too (since as previously mentioned, I’ve become a Tim Hutton fan).

I would love to see Hurley (Drew Powell) come back again, because his reappearance in “Boys’ Night Out” was so awesome, but I also would want it to be right. I wouldn’t want to go to that well one too many times.

Your turn, readers — what do you want to see in season five, and what do you expect to see?