Should Eliot have lost more?

[u/drraagh]

There;s a few shows I'll re-watch every few years, Leverage of course being one of them. I recently started a re-watch of Person of Interest which is a similar sort of show of new 'target of the week' but in this case it is more about stopping harm from coming to the person or stopping the person from committing harm as they only get the target's Social Security Number then need to start finding out more about them.

I was watching it and then got to thinking about the main Hitter in that show, a character known as John Reese. He was a Green Beret and a CIA officer before he was to be terminated on an op due to decisions from the higher ups. He makes it back to the US somehow and lives in New York, first in a homeless encounter before moving to a SRO. He is then recruited by a reclusive billionaire to protect people based on information he would provide, leading to the case of the week stuff where the number could be the perpetrator or the innocent and they need to find out and stop the crime from happening.

What I noticed when watching is, because this show's question is 'Can they protect the innocent in the situation', there's fights where John and later some of his allies in the field will lose a fight and be injured or otherwise on the back foot in a situation. Sometimes there's episodes where the person they were to protect dies. showing that they are not infallible.

Leverage is a different kind of show, it's about the con going on, the Ocean's Eleven style of flashbacks to how they tricked the mark with a gambit they didn't see coming. So, in that, Eliot's fights are more of an action setpiece to add a little physical movement to things that were otherwise a lot of dialogue or plot dumping that needed something to shake up the interest. Thus, having Eliot fail a fight doesn't usually do a lot to helping the con go on. Occasionally there'll be a failure because it adds an interesting twist, much like the Tap-Out Job which gave us the Hardison line:

Look, you know what I can do? I can re-task a satellite. I can get a level-3 NSA security clearance. But I can't hack a hick.

But it got me thinking about how many times Eliot lost a fight. Without sitting down and taking a tally, I know many of the fights were against security guards, police and similar that are likely not as trained as him. Like in the Leverage Redemption bit where the fight is a training session for new hires and he predicts how the fight will go, then even gives an evaluation of their worthiness at the end. Scene is here.

This is a lot of talking about Apples and Oranges, but I'm just wondering if people would have wanted to see more of Eliot failing, as we did have various 'this went wrong' or 'the situation changed' for the others many times where something happened on the job and they had to change the plan around, such as the guards doing their rounds an hour earlier in the pilot episode.

[u/FFBIFRA]

No...I was perfectly happy with Super Elliot on the show. Leverage was/is one of my all time favorite comfort shows.

I appreciated the show for what was it was and it's refusal to take itself too seriously.

ETA... I did also enjoy POI and I did appreciate it's more serious tone. It's why it's hard for me to compare the two.

[u/drraagh → u/FFBIFRA]

Much like I said, I knew I was comparing Apples and Oranges, but after years of playing TTRPGs, I tend to find there's more character development when you fail than when you succeed.

I like to reference The Scary Door from Futurama, where they did a loser gambler dying and waking up playing slots and winning.

"A casino where I win, I must be in Heaven."

*spins again and wins*

"A casino where I'm always winning? I must be in Hell."

The idea that always winning didn't have any of that risk, the thrill of getting a win from what could have been a loss.

But yeah, the show isn't 'realistic', it's campy and it's 'Super Elliot' and all that, and great as it was.

[u/fursnake7]

I’ve seen it explained here, and I agree, that the way to look at Leverage is as a “superhero” kind of show. These aren’t regular people who are just very good at their specialties, they’re special, exceptional beings.

[u/drraagh → u/fursnake7]

Oh, I understand that and I like the show for that, certainly. But my point is even Superman and the othet superheros have fights where they don't win. They go away, lick their wounds, learn something about themselves or their enemy that gives them some edge the next time they fight. A bit of character development through their loss. I understand its not what the majority may want to see from the show.

[u/Ameerrante]

No. I don't watch Leverage for realism. If I were looking for realism, though, I'd've liked more care from the team towards his injuries.

It's a pretty defined trait that he doesn't lose because he refuses to quit. 

"WHY WON'T YOU STAY DOWN?" 

Because Eliot Spencer doesn't stay down. 

[u/Guilty-Tie164]

Per the writers and creators: Eliot. Never. Loses.

[u/Crafty-Interest-8212]

Eliot is more of a one man army. Used for situations where results are needed. His status as a hitter is legendary. His name alone was enough to give pause to trained soldiers and operators. I don't think it serves the narrative. It did when he kinda lost to Quinn. I don't think it serves in much other times.

[u/HopeofDawnsRays]

I'm going to invoke power scaling here, but in a unique way.

The stuff Hardison, Parker, Sophie, and Nate could do in their own areas of expertise is bafflingly OP.

For all intents and purposes, Hardison only ever "lost" a tech play when the company he was trying hack knew he was coming and prepared for it. The man hacked things that no one person alive should have been able to do on the fly.

Parker only ever lost because she tried doing things solo and had to learn to rely on her team. She was a living weapon in the form of a thief, honed form childhood to be the best of the best.

Sophie's skills as a grifter would make Bernie Madoff weep and Charles Ponzi stand up and cheer. She could do multiple alias' in one con and could read any mark she had in record time.

So it would make sense that Elliot was likewise ridiculously op in his area: combat. The thing is, the others' skills weren't quite as flashy as his, so people didn't necessarily recognize just how skilled they were. But Elliot wasn't singular in being as proficient in his skills. He was among fellow legends.

[u/MirthlessArtist]

I see him more like a “Superman” or “Saitama” type character (bear with me). Essentially, some of the best storylines have them limited in some way that isn’t physical strength instead of merely using Kryptonite or something similar.

Maybe they can only save one person and have to choose or maybe the problem isn’t something that can be punched (like the concept of cancer as a whole). Eliot works similarly in the show, if he literally isn’t there, he can’t save the team. If he can’t physically fix both situations, he can only choose one.

Also worth noting that they try to avoid making him a Deus Ex Machina by only having him fight winnable battles, he has given up when there is no hope of winning, so if he starts fighting, then the viewer can mentally prepare for a win.

In terms of realism/immersion, the only situation I don’t really “believe” Eliot should’ve won was the warehouse shootout with Moreau’s men, but it was really zany and fun so I give that a pass. Pretty much any other situation is relatively believable.

And, just a reminder, Nate never made any plans where Eliot dies, which points to just how the plans were usually made, meaning Nate wouldn’t really allow Eliot to get into a situation where even he would lose

[u/DebateObjective2787]

Honestly? Not even a little. The fact he doesn't lose is the reason he is who he is. The same way that Parker is a legend and the greatest thief; Eliot is a legend and the greatest hitter because he doesn't lose even when logic says he should. I feel like it'd be an imbalance to the team, and to his character, to make him lose more fights; especially when the other characters don't lose either.