Wolfshades

Milton, as a supervisor I'm more concerned about results than I am about deportment. If she got the job done, regardless of her personal quirks, I have no problem.

Wolfshades

@MissUnderstood: likewise! : )

Wolfshades

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.

Wolfshades

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

Wolfshades

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

Wolfshades

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.

Wolfshades

You know what, Dan? You're right. It honestly never occurred to me to put that option in. I should have. Point taken. Thanks.

Wolfshades

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

Wolfshades

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

Wolfshades

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.