Am I the only one who felt that the ending to tonight’s Law & Order just felt cheap and weird? (For those who don’t know what I’m talking about and want to, the spoiler is below; you have to highlight the text below to reveal it.)

DA Arthur Branch (Fred Thompson) sat Serena Southerlyn (Elisabeth Rohm) down to tell her that she’s being fired. Her response: “Is it because I’m a lesbian?” How is this an appropriate piece of information to introduce, for the very first time, in the last five seconds of Rohm’s L&O life?

Comments and TrackBacks

I totally agree. I found it annoying and well, dirty.

• Posted by: James Spahr on Jan 12, 2005, 11:58 PM

Yeah, it didn’t make any sense. Unless she’s going on to do her own show with Ellen.

Even Branch making that decision didn’t fit into the show! He would have never done that.

• Posted by: Anthony on Jan 13, 2005, 12:42 AM

And now there’s quite a bit of funny, angry, and just plain confused banter over at Television Without Pity about Serena’s swan song.

• Posted by: Jason on Jan 13, 2005, 10:25 AM

Man, that was a real “WHAT THE FUCK?” moment. The wife and I just busted up, because where in the hell did that come from? She might as well have said, “Is it because I’m actually carved out of soap?”

• Posted by: Skot on Jan 13, 2005, 10:56 AM

Writer 1: How can we mask the fact that Serena’s firing makes no sense and is totally out of character for Branch?

Writer 2: Good question. (thinks) I know — let’s distract everybody with the idea of hot, blonde lesbians!

Writer 1: Brilliant!

(Also, where did Serena’s righteous indignation go? First she’s all “IS THIS BECAUSE I’M A LESBIAN?!”, which Branch denies by saying nothing more than the word “no” a bunch of times and *poof!* — she’s all better. All that outrage dissipated mighty fast.)

• Posted by: Shannon on Jan 13, 2005, 11:31 AM

I don’t watch Law & Order, but I would like to compliment you on your spoiler-hiding trick.

• Posted by: Patrick Connors on Jan 13, 2005, 11:33 AM

Couldn’t agree more. My wife and I just looked at each other when it was over. We tried to think of any previous episodes where this was even hinted at and didn’t find any.

They have hinted at Fontana being somewhat on the take with his expensive purchases but nothing about Serena’s personal life.

You would have thought they would have saved this for the sweeps.

• Posted by: josh lucas on Jan 13, 2005, 12:14 PM

I don’t care how Elizabeth Rohm goes, as long as she goes, her acting was wooden and annoying. I miss the ADA she replaced, Alexandra Cabot, she was a class act. I was sure the writers planned for her return, after she staged her own death and went into the witness protection program. But from the previews, looks like they have a new ADA.

• Posted by: Charles on Jan 14, 2005, 12:33 AM

Charles, you know that Serena Southerlyn (Rohm’s character) didn’t replace Alexandra Cabot’s character (Stephanie March) — Southerlyn was on Law & Order, and Cabot was on Law & Order SVU. Southerlyn replaced Abbie Carmichael (Angie Harmon).

• Posted by: Jason on Jan 14, 2005, 9:31 AM

When I saw that I wondered if they were setting up an on-going background legal battle. Remember when Lt. Van Buren sued the police department after being passed over for promotion? I’m wondering if Southerlyn is going to sue the DA for wrongful dismissal and that will kind of be in the background of the stories for a while.

• Posted by: david. on Jan 14, 2005, 10:29 AM

So tonight was the last episode for Elisabeth Rohm’s character A.D.A. Serena Southerlyn on Law & Order. There has been much discussion on the internets about how bad her character was - there was even a petition. In a word,…

• Pinged by :: Words on Jan 14, 2005, 12:04 PM

Ah, it’s hard to keep track of the ADAs. I was never a big fan of Angie Harmon. But I do want Alexandra Cabot back.

• Posted by: Charles on Jan 14, 2005, 12:06 PM

Because there was no context preceding the comment, the follow-up storyline suggested by David is the only thing that could possibly make the remark make sense.

• Posted by: jim on Jan 14, 2005, 4:57 PM

I liked the out-of-left-field nature of the revelation. Why should we have any clues she was a lesbian, considering how little time has been spent on the private lives of the heterosexuals? Any information about their outside lives is odd on those shows.

• Posted by: rcade [TypeKey Profile Page] on Jan 15, 2005, 4:28 PM

I laughed harder at that ending statement than any of Lenny’s jokes after finding the body! Non-sequitor anyone?

Agree with Shannon, but thought it was more of a “Oh, lesbians are hot. You know that L-Word show, Ellen, etc. Let’s do that.”

A group of us have been using this as a response to just about anything - not free for dinner on Friday night? Is it because I’m a lesbian?

• Posted by: sillygit on Jan 17, 2005, 2:21 AM
Please note that comments automatically close after 60 days; the comment spammers love to use the older, rarely-viewed pages to work their magic. If comments are closed and you want to let me know something, feel free to use the contact page!