Talk:Law & Order/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Technical Information

Any objections to adding a very brief section on the fact this has been shot on 16:9 film since at least 1996, meaning it's the earliest TV show to air in HD? Old64mb - August 6, 2005

No. --ThomasK 05:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Added, thanks for the good edit as I was struggling with making the wording accessible to the non-techie. -- Old64mb, August 8, 2005

"This also presents the unique oddity of reruns in HD, providing more (previously cropped) material than when the episodes were first run broadcast in 4:3." This is true in a way, but if you compare the new 16:9 version to the old 4:3 transfers you can see that the old ones actually had more video at the top and bottom, and the new ones have more on the sides. Does this mean it was shot in Super 35? Worth noting, but I'm not sure how to word it. Msgohan 01:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, haven't thought about this article and add in a while. It's no longer the case that it's the oldest series on TV broadcast in HD reruns, as the the Equalizer is now on UHD and it wouldn't surprise me if there are others that I don't know about now that I don't watch as much. It was at the time the very first old series broadcast in HD which is still worth noting, although referencing it would likely require going back to hard copy TV Guides from 2005, which if I'm really bored I'll do to back the statement up. IIRC AVSForum has an older thread on L&O where they got it confirmed that it was shot on film (I think Super 35), might want to look there. Old64mb 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Law? Order?

Isn't the first half of the show "Order" and the second half "Law"? Shouldn't the "Regular Cast" section be amended to reflect this?

Although many consider it them misnomers, the introduction associates "Law" with the cop part and "Order" with the lawyer part. --pfunk42 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What about just changing it to Police and District Attorney's Office? Also, instead of Older Cop/Younger Cop, what about Senior Partner/Junior Partner as it is represented in the pages of the Characters? Bok269 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bok269. Willbyr (talk · contribs)

I think we should stay with the terminology (i.e., "Law" and "Order") used on the show. I've always believed it was a bit backward, but my personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant. As for your other suggestion, S P/J P definitely sounds better.--Charles 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change it to Senior Partner Junior Partner, Bok269 15:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the Law / Order police vs. prosecutors, so I have removed the figurative label. Only during the credits would this designation really be at all signified, and even then it's stylistic, not factual. To continue this usage in the article is to promote confusion, and truthfully, the reason there are these splits in this order (excuse the pun) is because the phrase "law and order" already existed. Honestly, the show would best be described as Order & Law, but how catchy is that? As an encyclopedia-style article, poetic license should be reduced, not encouraged. At least we should vote on it...? --SidP 02:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro revert

I reverted the fancy intro by Rfc1394. Too snazzy; not very encyclopedic. Feel free to voice any disagreement. --pfunk42 05:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm, you got me good there. I was about to voice my disagreement with the revert, but now that I think about it, yeah, it's not very encyclopedic. I kinda like the old one, but I guess it doesn't fit. --PhoenixAvatar2 07:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Information source

As of 2006, the show runs little to no risk of cancellation in the near future - Where is this information from? I never read this somewhere so I can't believe it. --88.73.208.218 20:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Crossovers

Law & Order crossed over three times with another NBC show, Homicide: Life on the Street (1993) - This information is not correct, because there were also other crossovers with L&O: SVU and L&O: TbJ. --88.73.253.220 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Should there also be a mention of the never-produced 2001 crossover movie/miniseries/whatever? When the 2001-2002 season was announced, the producers were talking about a storyline that crossed through L&O, SVU and Criminal Intent episodes (or else it was going to be some three part movie with all 3 casts in it) and the plotline was about a terrorist attack on New York. This was before September 2001 and obviously the whole idea was abandoned.

Sharing a scene with a district attorney

I'm not a long time fan of the show, so I wouldn't know. What's so special about it? 210.49.216.85 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In Law & Order, the two cops and the two Assistant DAs always interact with each other, and usually the cops' boss interacts with the ADAs, as well. It's very rare for the bigwig District Attorney to actually interact with any of the three cops. They just don't cross paths that often, so when they do, it's a big thing. tv316 10:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be information that has encyclopaedic value. Joestella 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuck Norris reference

I'm going to remove the reference to the Chuck Norris Fact about "Law" and "Order" since it doesn't directly relate to the show. If anyone thinks it merits placement on the Law & Order trivia page, then let's put it there. Willbyr 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Plots

Though any similarity to actual people or events is *obviously* coincidental, does anyone else think that one of the touches L&O has is ripping a news headline and putting their own twist on it? (Or, is it just me?) -HiFiGuy 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It definitely occurs; the SVU article mentions several episodes that are based on real-life crimes. Willbyr 13:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a little information about that today after creating an article for the term "ripped from the headlines." It's fair to mention that the ads specifically plug the fact-based nature of cases and to point out that the fictional treatment allows for twists the real-life case didn't have, so I added those bits. Lawikitejana 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of plots

About the plots. It seems that Law and Order has done many episodes posing Christians as crazy extremists. I suggest a possible criticism page that includes this. I saw many Christian associations and newspapers reporting on this with credible psychologists and theologists. I would also any criticism on the show not just religion.--Truthfulchat (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd

Why does the DVD releases go: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th? What about everything from 4th to 13th? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 22:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume they chose that order because of how many seasons the show has. People will want the more recent seasons, because they remember them more clearly. MiraLuka 23:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NBC First Look

The NBC First Look web site only shows Sam Waterson, Jesse L. Martin, and S. Epatha Merkerson in the Law & Order picture. For the other L&O series, the casts are shown intact. Is someone other than Annie Parisse leaving? I remember Dick Wolf saying he is planing a major cast change before. Jonyyeh 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Farina has left the cast as well.[1] Threephi 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

The trivia list article should be merged into this one. However, it wouldn't be a standard merge. Most of the irrelevant stuff should not be here and the notable stuff can be mentioned naturally in the article as prose. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure

Does anyone know for sure why some episodes have a message at the beginning about their basis in actual events and real people? is it only for the episodes that are very similar to real current events, like Geraldo telling the television audience his location? Davemarshall04 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed...Some events mirror actual things that have happened. Those are the ones this message is used in pertinence to, as the other message says they are completely ficticious. Michael 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moriarty

Assuming that a reference can be found, would it be appropriate to put something in this article about why the early episodes of the show (those in which Michael Moriart was the ADA) are no longer shown in syndication? If such an addition would be appropriate, where should it be placed? This is something I have given a lot of thought to, but anything I would write at this time would be OR, unless I can find some references. Has anyone else given this subject any thought? ---Charles 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

He was actually the EADA, and I believe they do sometimes show a show with him, don't they? I haven't seen one recently, though, so you might be right. Michael 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, he was the EADA. However, not a single episode with him in it has been shown since the program stopped being shown on A&E. I think there must be a reason for it. I will continue looking for a reference. ---Charles 03:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's true. I wonder why. Michael 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'd like to know. ---Charles 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Me, too!!! -- Dcflyer 04:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never did find any reference anywhere for why TNT was not showing old(er) episodes of L&O. Then, this afternoon, home sick with the flu, I saw one of the old episodes, with Michael Moriarty, on TNT. So, it could be that they have recently started showing those episodes, or that they've been doing so all along, but not often. At any rate, I guess that settles it. ---Charles 03:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I might be a little late in saying this, but Bravo! plays reruns of the entire series straight through, Monday through Friday. (Or at least it did.) Geuiwogbil 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They don't show episodes with him in it on TNT because TNT does not own the rights to the earlier episodes. ---Brian

Need a "ripped from the headlines" guide

It would be a worthwhile project to make a list page cataloguing the episodes that have clear parallels to real cases, especially for the benefit of those viewers who are outside the U.S. and wouldn't as likely recognize the real-life antecedents. Even I find out once in a while that some bizarre storyline turns out to be from a case I didn't hear about until well after the episode. Lawikitejana 23:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

AGREE - in fact, just posted a mention of this on the talk page for the franchise article. Would also help direct wiki volunteers to pages about the actual crimes that could probably need help tracking down facts, sources, etc. RoyBatty42 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Already working on it. DanDud88 15:15, 7 May 2007.

L&O: Trial by Jury

In this section it says: "(The death of Orbach, one of the stars, after filming only two episodes may have adversely affected the show's ability to draw in new viewers.[citation needed])." Why is a citation needed if the sentence is speculative in nature? I suppose writers of articles articles aren't supposed to speculate, in which case I nominate the sentence be scrapped altogether.Anrie 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If the information is from an outside source, partcularly one who is an expert on L&O or telvision programs in general, then I'd say it's appropriate to keep as it gives one *possible* explanation for why this particular L&O spin-off failed when others have succeded. Of course, such an outside source needs an immediate citation. Otherwise, as you said, it is considered to be the author's own speculation and hence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Behold, my two cents have spoken! Nutgraph 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Anrie 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Narrator mention?

Not sure if this is worth adding, so I leave it up to those better qualified to make the decision. Shouldn't Steven Zirnkilton be mentioned as the narrator who reads the opening statement for this (see the opening statement in this article under Section 1: Description) and every other program in the entire Law & Order franchise? Just thought it might be worthwhile, given the exhaustive amount of technical information on the cast, not to mention those narrations are one of the L&O hallmarks. Nutgraph 08:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "better qualified", but I agree that that information ought to be added. I'll check back in a few days and do it myself if it hasn't been done by then.Anrie 13:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good enough for me then. I'll try to get around to adding it myself later tonight. If I don't (or if I do, but it's horribly written) feel free to add/modify it yourself as planned. Nutgraph 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been two days and you haven't gotten round to it. Hope you don't mind that I did it myself. Anrie 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all! Just glad I can make things easier for the next person who comes here looking for that bit of information. Well done, by the way. Much obliged. Nutgraph 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the third longest running show

This webpage claims 'Law & Order' is the third longest running show on American primetime, behind '60 Minutes' and 'The Simpsons'. However, this is incorrect, as 'Cops' and 'America's Most Wanted' have both been around longer. Also, I believe '20/20' is still around.

Anybody else check this out, whoever said this is right. I don't have time to check all current running shows at this timne, so I'm removing the false statement.24.158.102.32 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tracking the dates and scene subnotes during an episode

The following appears under the "Technical Accuracy" of the main article:

"In the actual legal system, trials often take several months to complete, whereas trials on Law & Order tend to take no more than a week."

This is an easy conclusion to draw, but untrue. Did you ever closely pay attention to the subnotes for all the scene changes throughout an episode (the small white text at the bottom of the screen when the "ding" noise comes on)? If you do, you'll notice that they are all dated. If you string them together you'll see that most of these cases last for many months, and some for more than a year. The show's intent is to help you, as a viewer, follow one case from beginning to conclusion, but the time span for any one case is certainly not "no more than a week."

This, logically, nullifies the next statement appearing in the main article: "The Law and Order detectives and prosecutors tend not to work on more than one or two cases an episode, whereas in reality prosecutors may have the carriage of up to one hundred files at any one time."

Again,the intent of an episode is to help the view follow a case from beginning to end. But since a case lasts many months (as proven above), we have to logically assume that the detectives and lawyers do in fact juggle many other cases rather than sitting on their hands waiting for the next development in the highlighted case.

Showing the actual day-to-day task juggling of an individual character or department would be confusing and boring to the viewers.

Petroneus 17:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In the future, feel free to correct such information yourself. I removed the "offending" bit, but I think the whole paragraph needs a rehaul as a result. I'll get to it asap. Anrie 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Error concerning spinoffs

The article mentions that Trial by Jury was the first L&O spinoff to be cancelled. This isn't entirely true. In 2000-2001, there was an L&O spinoff called 'Deadline', starring Oliver Platt and Bebe Neuwirth. It was cancelled after one season, and this happened a few years before TBJ. However, the author of the article may not consider 'Deadline' to be an L&O spinoff because it doesn't actually carry the L&O name.

And likewise. TBJ/CI weren't supposed to carry the same as well. I don't even remember deadline and have to see episodes formats to believe it.74.195.3.199 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

law & order credits

After all these years, don't you think that Leslie Hendrix should be listed as: Leslie Hendrix as,

          M.E.Rodgers, M.D.?

She has been with the show for quite afew years and her role is important to the plots.

                        Thank you,
                   J.E.Stonecypher4.154.35.140 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

She is already listed on the List of Law & Order characters page. This article only mentions special guest stars or actors/actresses appearing as more than one character. Anrie 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Technical accuracy

In this section of the article the following comment is made:

Forensic experts are portrayed as almost omniscient and forensic evidence is rarely portrayed as botched or questionable; acquittals are generally gained in the face of forensic evidence only when a defense lawyer successfully argues for its inadmissibility on a sophistic or cynical "technicality".

I have been re-watching the second season of the original L&O and it proves this statement as false. The information gleaned from forensic evidence is often shown to be frustratingly vague and inconclusive. There is a sense that this type of evidence serves mostly to back up or disprove theories formulated by detective work. So either this statement is patently false or it only applies to later seasons, which I haven't seen in a while.

I strongly agree: While I have no knowledge of forensics, the American judicial system or any of the other process under attack in the section, Law and Order, in my mind, has always seemed more realistic that other crime and detective shows. I strongly feel that those accusations need to be backed up with a considerable number of episodes for reference - and soon - otherwise it should be removed.

Ironic that a crime show should be found "guilty" without proof. Anrie 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, it is always useful to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). This will add your name, the time and the date to your posts, which makes it easier to let other users know who they are responding to and when the conversation was started. Anrie 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Cast

I think the cast information for Law & Order, at least the main cast, should be displaying *in* this article. I don't think it's particularly helpful or practical to have the cast bit redirect you to the 'List of Law & Order characters' without any additional or basic information in this article about it.

Agree strongly. Feel free to add it yourself, or, if you don't, I'll add it myself within the next day or so. It's also useful to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~): this will sign your name, the time and the date, which is useful to let other users know who they are responding to and when the post was made. Anrie 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia and cast list

I removed the trivia section after incorporating most of the information into the recurring section of the article. I didn't include some information because I think it wasn't really relevant to that section of the article.

For example:

• Carolyn McCormick had star billing for most of Season 3 into Season 4.
• The UK-aired versions of Law & Order and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit feature the song "I'm Not Driving Anymore" by Rob Dougan in the opening credits. Another Rob Dougan track - "There's Only Me", is used as the theme for Law & Order: Criminal Intent

I also added a section containing a list of all the former and present major characters.

Jahunta07 18:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Question concerning See Also section

Should the wiki links to Hill Street Blues and NYPD be included? While they both are police/crime dramas, they have little else in common: (creaters, cast members, writers, etc.)

Jahunta07 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lawandorder01.jpg

Image:Lawandorder01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Technical Deletion

A section marked "original research" was never put up for debate and was deleted earlier today. Can we reach a consensus on this? AgentFade2Black 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

arthur branch

first appeared in episode 13.1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629156/

OR section removed

I removed the following completely OR section here in lieu of sources. It had been tagged as OR for a while. Marcus Taylor 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical accuracy

The same detectives always working with the same prosecutors is not a realistic depiction of the legal system, nor is the number of high-profile, highly complicated cases taken on, nor their success in solving nearly all of them (and with their failures often a result of societal prejudice or by unethical actions by the plaintiff or opposing counsel). In the actual legal system, most real cases do not go to trial and are settled with a plea bargain, whereas the trial is a signature part of nearly every Law & Order episode (though a large number of cases are indeed resolved in plea bargains). Nonetheless, the characters and process depicted can be seen as amalgams of the entire legal system, and the technically unrealistic legal process (the same 4 people investigating and trying every high-profile murder in New York) as a simplifying plot device necessary for the show to be possible, thus maintaining suspension of disbelief.

Alternatively, viewers can take this point of view: the cases depicted on the show are not all the ones the detectives handle, but only those in which they are working with the specific prosecutors. Likewise, the cases depicted may not represent all those on which the prosecutors work, but only major, complicated cases which proceed to trial. A significant amount of time compression (compressing events that may occur over a period of months into a one-hour show format) may also be assumed. There is usually a date on the cards used for scene transitions, supporting this theory.

The lawyers, police, accused, perpetrators, defendants, judges, psychiatrists, and forensic experts on the show, as well as the victims and witnesses of crimes, speak in pithy, perfunctory sentences (usually with a tone of arrogance) that help to expedite the plot with a minimum of dialogue, even when the same characters are visibly upset or under cross examination. Frequently, questioning of key witnesses lasts a minute or less, even in real time. Expert witnesses typically perform infallibly under cross examination without equivocation. Nevertheless, the defense's expert witnesses, particularly psychiatrists, are regularly shown to be advocates of controversial or fringe ideologies such as Repressed memory or Black rage. Forensic experts are portrayed as almost omniscient and forensic evidence is rarely portrayed as botched or questionable; acquittals are generally gained in the face of forensic evidence only when a defense lawyer successfully argues for its inadmissibility on a sophistic or cynical "technicality". Like many legal dramas the show has thus been accused of providing an unrealistic portrayal of the criminal justice system (see the CSI Effect).

In addition to the issues regarding accuracy in relation to the legal system in general, the show inaccurately represents the judicial system of New York County specifically. While the death penalty is often a significant plot point in Law and Order episodes, no one has ever been charged with capital murder in Manhattan during the period when New York had a functional capital punishment statute. Likewise, the election of a conservative Republican in the mode of Arthur Branch, is virtually inconceivable in overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan.

"Law & Order:Crime and Punishment"

What???...no mention of this short-lived L&O spinoff(set entirely in L.A.), starring Jon Tenney?...it only lasted thre months on NBC in the mid-1990s...Michaela92399 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah...in fact, there were TWO "L&O:Crime and Punishment" series":the one you mentioned, and the other where it's set in San Diego County(w/ real-life DA's and suspects)...unfortunately, everybody's focused on THAT one for some dumb reason...Baldwin91006 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Books

The first book entry, Dead Line, reads like an advertisement. "Following the exact format and pacing of the TV show, this original novel is a must for the millions of L&O viewers." The Unoffical Companion isn't much better, "It is the first-ever guide to this popular, Emmy award-winning police drama. You'll get the inside scoop on: the past and current stars of the show..." 76.178.138.165 12:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast Table

So I've been fooling around with the cast table on my own sandbox tonight trying to figure out how to get it to list two different people under one season and haven't quite been able to perfect it. I was hoping there was someone who is a bit more knowledgable about Wiki tables than me who can help.

Specifically, the issues I was trying to fix are:

• Paul Sorvino and Jerry Orbach each appeared in season three as the senior detective..
• Elisabeth Röhm and Annie Parisse each appeared in season 15 as the ADA.
• Jesse L. Martin and Michael Imperioli each appeared in season 15 as the junior detective.

Any help anyone can get would be greatly appreciated. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The original cast table actually did indicate this. I guess someone must have changed it without understanding it. I'm restoring the previous version. 128.100.8.94 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's almost what I had in mind. Is there a way, though, to reflect that Michael Imperioli was a regularly credited cast member for the last part of season 15? -- Redfarmer (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)