I think real life is the only valid way of determining the believability of a situation or behaviour. When a show shows something that wouldn't happen in real life, the ability to suspend disbelief becomes strained.
Historically, on the show, you're right. None of them would ever tell Gibbs to "hold up a minute" or suggest he might be wrong. In real life, it happens with various bosses - and so I guess that's where I'm coming from. I would avoid telling a micro-managing boss that he might be wrong, but I would tell someone like Gibbs that (although it wouldn't be "you're wrong" so much as "have you considered that this other way might work". Something politic.)
Workplace dynamics are always so interesting to watch. I know others see it differently but I just don't see Gibbs losing any status at all by considering other options offered by Bishop. A good boss wouldn't be threatened by her behaviour but would learn how to channel it for the sake of the team, and more importantly, for the sake of getting the job done.
Comment modified at February 08, 2014 16:07
Do you really think that's true? Gibbs never smacked Tony for stating a case-related bit of information - he always got the slap for offering smartass remarks. I don't recall Tony ever vehemently disagreeing with Gibbs about anything important though. (Maybe someone else here has - my memory's not that great sometimes).
On a side note, I've noticed lately that Tony is getting away with making funny comments, without fear of Gibbs. Seems more grownup somehow.
Comment modified at February 07, 2014 20:15
Hi Fay. I think you've stated your position quite well - and it's far and away a much better description of some of the problems with the new dynamic. And I especially appreciate what you're saying because for a long time I've been wondering why there seems to be such a strong reaction to Bishop. I guess the bottom line is: the writers are taking a decisive risk. They do so whenever they shake everything up as they have here. It seemed for a few years that the only background dynamic seemed to be about whether Tony and Ziva would ever acknowledge the romantic tension that the viewers all did - and the foreground was always about the case of the week. Now that tension is gone, and something has to take its place. Enter Bishop. I'm certain the show will lose viewers as a result, but I'm just as sure new ones will come along. But…that's me, gazing through my cloudy crystal ball. What I have to say and $5.00 will get you a coffee. : )
Stay tuned though: our Round Table on this episode will include some hard questions about Bishop. And thank you for commenting.
You know what, Dan? You're right. It honestly never occurred to me to put that option in. I should have. Point taken. Thanks.
That might be nice if I was. CBS doesn't know me from Adam.
(Edit: sorry - that was supposed to be a reply to MissUnderstood)
Comment modified at February 06, 2014 19:46
I'm guessing you're not a fan of change too? Help me understand: if I joined in the Bishop-bashing that would make me unbiased? Is that what you're saying?
Like yourself or anyone else here - I like what I like and dislike what I dislike. I wouldn't be doing these reviews if I had a neutral opinion. Plus it would be boring to read.
Comment modified at February 06, 2014 18:53
The need to call in Prentiss, at least at the start, was sketchy. But as a plot device - particularly being the only one who would understand about "Blackbird" - she worked well, I think. I think the bigger goal here was to make the 200th episode memorable. More than anything, that's why she was there.
Strauss too, now that I think of it. Did we really need Strauss running the operation in Afghanistan? Seems doubtful.
I was glad to see them both.
I'm with you on that one. The NCIS team has been existing in a kind of stasis for the past few years: Tony jokes, Ziva rolls her eyes, Tim looks disgruntled at Tony, and Gibbs comes along to slap Tony in the head. The writers have taken the exit of Cote de Pablo as an opportunity to shake everything up. Not only does Bishop provide a different, more intense character (a lot like Reid on Criminal Minds), but her presence is used to reconfigure the team a bit. Have you noticed - Tony makes jokes but isn't the butt of jokes so much anymore. He's going through his own renaissance - learning what it means to support and lead, without taking potshots so much. Gibbs is experiencing a new dynamic too: he gets to lead by letting his folk take their own lead a bit, instead of micromanaging. Tim is learning to not be so defensive around Tony. It's all very very good. Also, very very different. A lot of people dislike change. I think that latter dynamic is what we're seeing here.
I think Rust was right: Martin is in denial, as evidenced by that "unadorned finger" that you mentioned.
I really like the whole premise of the show, and the flash backwards and forwards between 1995 and 2012. How did Rust get to be so bedraggled? What happened to cause him to change so dramatically? And yet...his character really hasn't wavered, has it? He's always been somewhat of a nihilist, and that part of him hasn't changed through the years.
© 2014 TV Fanatic