Re: Lie To Me 11/30 Ending (SPOILERS)
Patty Winter
In article <7njq5tF...@mid.individual.net>,
KalElFan <kale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>SPOILER warning in the thread title.
[and now in the body, for those who see the first several lines
automatically]
>So he's paid in chips and bets a million-dollars on 00? We don't
>see the result, so maybe the fade out has some cute/memorable
>quality to it. But it makes your lead character absurdly reckless.
This is news? We knew that a long time ago, well before Jillian asked
Reynolds to keep Cal away from the roulette table.
Patty
shawn
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"Patty Winter" <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote in message
>news:4b14b787$0$1624$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>But a million dollars? And a few episodes back there was a line
>about the firm needing the money. It's no defense that a line in
>this script alludes to a past gambling problem, when we get the
>Mother of All Reckless Gambles ending.
I think this episode was supposed to air before these last few
episodes. So at the time of this episode the firm wasn't in trouble.
At least that's how it felt to me.
>If his deal with the casino owner was that he'd be paid in chips
>and then had to let it all ride on a single roulette bet, then fine.
>Or if he knew he'd win the bet for whatever reason. Reynolds
>was winning (or said he was after the fact), which is itself not
>explainable as a nitpick. But that was a relatively small wad
>of cash by comparison, a couple of thousand perhaps.
He can't know he's going to win because it's pure luck. It shows
another part of his personality where he can become addicted to the
adrenaline. So he bets on roulette where he has no control or
influence over the outcome, and we know that he had been somewhat
addicted to the thrill of war.
>I've only been watching for a half dozen episodes at most,
>and I like the fact Cal has the shady past and so on. Last
>week's ep was good, where he was taking life and death
>chances but to save lives, and they gave him the Bosnia
>back story. But the sexual recklessness in this episode
>also seemed to run against what they seemed to be setting
>up last episode, with his daughter and Gillian all acting like
>a family in the Christmas setting. It made this one all the
>more jarring a turn in that respect.
As I said above I'm pretty sure in terms of the story this episode
occurred much earlier in the season. Too much of what happened here is
out of sync with what we've seen for this to fit in the development of
the season. If you think of this episode as having occurred during the
time of the first few episodes of the season it works much better as
the various emotional developments and the financial situation were
much different at that time.
>The impression I get of House -- and it's only from
>the clips and promos and discussions I run across and
>the like, because I don't watch -- is that part of that
>show's shtick is to make House so obnoxious and
>unlikeable that he becomes a spectacle you can't stop
>watching. Maybe that's a selling point, to see what
>over-the-top House personal flaws will be on display
>next episode and so on. If that's what Lie To Me has
>done with Cal for the first 17 episodes I haven't seen
>then the episode last night might not be a surprise.
Cal isn't in the same situation as House. House is, as you say, an
unlikable character that people like solely because of his amazing
diagnostic skills. Cal is actually a likeable person on his own. The
problem with Cal is when he lets his ability to read people get in the
way of relationships. Though it is mostly used only during the cases
he takes on and with the people he works with where they seem to test
each other on a regular basis.
I can't imagine House, as he is, having a child and having that child
like him. Whereas it's easy to see why his daughter cares about Cal as
he obviously loves her and really wants the best for her. Sometimes
his abilities to read people can get in the way of that relationship
with her, but it isn't the sort of thing that would destroy the
relationship. Also you don't see Cal Lightman sabotaging relationships
where House regularly sabotages the relationships he has.
Adam H. Kerman
>But a million dollars? And a few episodes back there was a line
>about the firm needing the money. It's no defense that a line in
>this script alludes to a past gambling problem, when we get the
>Mother of All Reckless Gambles ending. . . .
It pissed me off too. We'll know next week if Kelli Williams has killed
him. Apparently the two of them are business partners, but only in the
sense that they share the debt. Lightman doesn't have to share the fees.
It's even possible that the casino owner is partly liable to Dr. Foster as
the fee was paid personally to Lightman and not the firm. That's not
business.
Pete B
MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply says...
> That doesn't change the fact that Cal seemed to behave financially
> irresponsibly with respect to his cash-strapped business at the end of
> last week's episode. That is his fault.
>
More likely it is the fault of the network for shuffling episodes
around.
KalElFan
news:9reah5phditckkjtg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:27:41 -0500, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ... a million dollars? And a few episodes back there was a line
>> about the firm needing the money. It's no defense that a line in
>> this script alludes to a past gambling problem, when we get the
>> Mother of All Reckless Gambles ending.
>
> I think this episode was supposed to air before these last few
> episodes. So at the time of this episode the firm wasn't in trouble.
> At least that's how it felt to me.
This discussion was almost a month ago now, but one new ep and
then a repeat of the season 2 premiere have aired since. Both were
good, but the premiere was relevant to this issue. It established the
reason for the financial problems, i.e. Cal buying out his ex so she
wouldn't move to Chicago for a law firm job there, and try to take
their daughter with her. So this roulette risk ep still wouldn't have
made sense if it had aired soon after that.
The premiere even foreshadowed it, with Cal specifically saying
he could win some money in Vegas if he needed to. His partner is
horrified and asks him to promise he wouldn't go to Vegas, that's
right before the end of the ep. That Cal vulnerability crops up in
the dialogue again in the Vegas episode itself, and we saw the ep
in between where Cal's poker skills are obvious. But it just makes
the risk even less explicable. He was up a million and could have
made more playing poker, but he apparently blows it all on Roulette.
>> If his deal with the casino owner was that he'd be paid in chips
>> and then had to let it all ride on a single roulette bet, then fine.
>> Or if he knew he'd win the bet for whatever reason. Reynolds
>> was winning (or said he was after the fact), which is itself not
>> explainable as a nitpick. But that was a relatively small wad
>> of cash by comparison, a couple of thousand perhaps.
>
> He can't know he's going to win because it's pure luck.
Actually the only good explanation here is that he did know he
would win, and did win after the fade out. Maybe Reynolds
also had some angle, not a legitimate edge because there is
none in Roulette like skill might be in Blackjack or Poker.
But some rigging perhaps, with Reynolds keeping it modest
enough and Cal walking away with $35 million in the one
play. He rationalizes it as a combination payback for past
losses and the much higher value of services rendered for
this $1M job.
I don't think that's what will be revealed as the result, but
if the issue never crops up again we can assume it I guess.
He won the bet, and the only plausible explanation is that
he somehow knew he would. I'd actually rather that than
that he was idiotic enough to throw away a million when
the firm badly needed it.
nect...@yahoo.com
He kept 1m for the firm. And used the other 1m on the roulette.
