Ding dong. Is it the Avon lady? Is it an eager Girl Scout? If your name is Charlie Crews, you won’t be receiving the perfect shade of lipstick or a box of delicious cookies; you’ll be getting a bullet in the chest.
This week’s episode of Life moseyed along with some nice character moments, but without a lot of action. Even a sadistic Russian and another Veronica Mars alum couldn’t keep me from checking Twitter every five minutes or so. I kept on thinking, “come on, is this really what we’re getting as the last episode until February?” Well, it turns out I should have known better. Life isn’t going to go out like that: they’re going to shoot Charlie in the chest!
The big question, of course, is who did it? After the jump, I list my suspects in order of likelihood.
1. Agent Bodner – This guy has been popping up since last season and has become more nefarious each time. We first saw him when we were introduced to Roman Nevikov. Bodner protected Nevikov because he was an FBI informant. It turns out Bodner is probably the one working for Nevikov, not the other way around. In addition, Bodner is somehow involved in the whole conspiracy, as he warned Crews not to investigate Jack Reese too deeply. However, there’s a good chance that the whole “Crews found out about the prisoners in the basement” thing pissed Nevikov off enough that he had Bodner get rid of his problem.
2. Jack Reese - Reese had successfully hidden his involvement in the Bank of Los Angeles shootout and theft for years, even going so far as to have Crews take the fall for the murder of his money launderer and his family. Reese retired with his money and remained well-respected within the department — until Crews got out of jail and started poking around. It was bad enough that Crews found the real killer and had him put in jail, but now he’s getting closer and closer to unraveling the conspiracy at which Reese is presumably in the center. Maybe Reese finally lost his cool and collected exterior and decided to stop Charlie’s investigation once and for all.
3. Mark Conover – Maybe Charlie’s shooting wasn’t part of the conspiracy against him at all. Maybe it was much more straightforward: Jennifer confessed to her back seat escapades with Charlie and he got jealous. Or perhaps he’s just sick of getting pulled over all the damn time.
4. Bobby Starks – Bobby didn’t exactly come to Charlie’s defense when he was imprisoned for murder. The story is that this was because he was threatened, but who’s to say it doesn’t go deeper than that? Maybe Bobby is beholden to someone involved in the conspiracy and has been getting chummy with Crews so he can stay close and glean information about the investigation, and has now been ordered to kill him.
5. Rachel Seybolt – She grew up with the man who killed her family. This girl obviously has issues. While she may not appear to have a particular motive, she’s clearly unstable — maybe Charlie shooting his father triggered something within her. Also, since moving in with Charlie, this character has been kind of extraneous, so maybe the writers wanted to give her something to do.
6. Olivia - Well, Charlie’s dad did say she was on her way over…. Besides, weddings are stressful. Maybe Charlie’s constant dodging of her and the wedding invitation finally pushed her over the edge. Okay, probably not. I just really like Christina Hendricks and want her to be on the show more, since it seems like Mad Men‘s third season is pretty far away.
Those are my suspects. Do you think someone on this list did it, or do you have a list of your own? Post it in the comments. If you need to refresh your memory, Ive included the clip of the shooting so you can look for clues.
Clacked by Kona Gallagher 
on Dec 19, 2008 @ 13:30 EST5EDT
I’m not a huge spoilerphobe, but that title is ridiculously spoilerish. Exercise a little judgement in the future, please.
I don’t even watch the show and I am mad. Way to go! :-)
I think it was one of Roman’s henchmen.
I money is on either Reese or the FBI guy. But i wouldn’t put it past the show to have it as somebody out of the blue.
By the way your poll is not working.
Seriously, folks… What what point do things stop becoming spoilers? Should they have tabled the “Who Shot JR” question a couple of months just to make sure everyone saw the spring finale?
This is a site about the discussion of television, and should not have to censor itself AFTER a show has aired.
Nothing about television drives me up the wall more than people complaining about spoilers, especially after a show has aired.
Even I think these two complaints are ridiculous. The show aired tuesday, it’s FRIDAY now.
If you don’t want to be spoilered get your ass in front of the TV earlier. A 24 hour moratorium on spoilers is ok and they adhered to that here on CC but seriously you complain about spoilers three days after the original airing of a show?
That’s just idiotic.
Besides, he gets shot – how’s that a spoiler? He’s a cop on a cop drama, how much of a spoiler is it that he got shot?
I guess you guys would complain about “Lana ends up in the hospital on this episode” Smallville “spoilers”. I know I’m exaggerating but honestly this happens at the end of the show and we know nothing else than that he got shot. You don’t even know WHERE he got shot.
Anyway – I won’t vote since I think it was simply a hired person. The question is who hired said person and if you ask me it was somebody we don’t even know yet. Somebody not on the wall at all.
Mainly because I don’t get the whole backstory. They lost about 10 or 12 episodes ago and now I only follow the murder of the day as well as the family sidestories. That’s still damn good TV.
Lana ends up in the hospital. Nice.
What’s idiotic is thinking everyone who watches TV has the time to watch it live, especially when all the current talk is about how many viewers time-shift shows.
Not being able to understand that is what’s truly idiotic.
Assuming that everyone’s watched the episode just because it’s 3 days past is idiotic.
Considering the news that a the main character in a show gets shot, cop show or not, isn’t a spoiler is idiotic.
Thinking that anyone was complaining specifically about the news that Charlie gets shot and not that it was PLASTERED AS THE TITLE is idiotic.
Geez, it turns out you two are a couple of putzes…or is it putzi?
Get this straight you morons: We’re not all single dorm-dwellers, frat assholes, living at home with mom or crammed in an apartment with out buds. Some of us have real jobs, families, mortgages, obligations and even elderly parents relying on us every day. Some of us own businesses and have continuing education to keep licenses and qualifications so we can continue to run those businesses. Some of us spend a good deal of time away from home in the course of doing business. Some of us volunteer our time with local organizations, go to performances by our children, go to meetings for various and sundry reasons ranging from school meetings to across-the-country business meetings, go out to dinner and a play, the list goes on and on…
In other words: some of us are adults in more than the “I’m 18 or 21 so I’m a big boy!” sense. We have lives away from the TV.
All anyone was asking, and I know this probably is confusing for you since it’s outside the realm of video games and music videos, is just to keep spoilers off the title. If you stop texting long enough to actually think, you might one day be un-confused enough to ask a real “grown up” just what this all means. Same goes for the, and I use this word as loosely as possible, author of this, ahem, article.
Franklin — Totally uncalled for digs in your comment to Kona.
Perhaps we should have titled the post “Who shot someone on that show the other night?”
You talk about having a life outside of watching TV within 48-hours of an episode’s airing, then you should have no problem realizing that bitching about something like this is ridiculously petty. Go take a nap.
*POST AUTHOR*
If I say something about an episode after that episode airs, it is not a spoiler. I am not responsible for your viewing habits.
Keith, it’s been asked of you people to death that you keep spoilers after the jump, and especially keep the spoilers out of the title. Apparently that’s too much to ask.
You suggest a title in a sarcastic tone. Allow me to suggest a title in a serious one besides the very excellent suggestion of Christian H: “Review of Life “Trapdoor” or maybe “Life: 3 Russians, 4 Bullets, 1 Mystery Shooter” or even “Someone You Know Takes A Bullet On Life”.
I mean, come on, there’s a million ways to offer up a relevant title without giving away something as huge as Charlie getting shot. If you disagree then either you aren’t trying or you’re not very bright.
I’ll make a deal with you, Keith. I’ll go take a nap if you work on you cognitive skills. You miss the point completely, as usual. Since you haven’t caught on to what many readers have been telling you for ages, and this includes TV Squat, is to keep spoilers after the jump, but especially, and I use caps because it’ll make it easier for you to understand, KEEP SPOILERS OUT OF THE TITLE. Do you think you can understand that simple phrase? I’m certain you and Kona both will have a difficult time with this since it’s been driven into your thick heads ad nauseam and yet somehow it never manages to penetrate.
Kona, if it’s information that I, or someone else, is unaware of and it’s printed, it’s a spoiler. Of course you’re not responsible for my viewing habits, but you are responsible for being a complete idiot by putting a huge spoiler that literally tells how the episode concludes as the title of the article! That’s ridiculous, inconsiderate and just plain stupid.
I know you two will have trouble getting this, but I’m not expecting spoilers to be kept out of articles completely. I love spoilers, but only when I choose to read them. What Kona did was make the title the ultimate spoiler for this particular episode. That’s about the stupidest thing I’ve seen any of you “bloggers” do. What makes it worse is her self-righteous indignation in failing to see how idiotic that was and her subsequent failure to admit she was in error in doing so. The icing on the cake, the added level of idiotic if you will, is Keith being so clueless when it was so simple.
Keith and Kona; go take a journalism course. Having a website and putting words on it doesn’t make you qualified to do so.
Franklin, I agree with you completely. Real life and the advent of the DVR has made watching a TV show at it’s scheduled network air time an extinct practice in my house. (Come to think of it, nobody that I know personally these days watches shows as they air anymore…) The title spoiled the episode for me as well, and I too was angry. So please… KEEP THE SPOILERS OUT OF THE TITLE, and in the article instead with a big fat, juicy *SPOILER ALERT* posted as a warning.
Thanks so much :o)
Now that I got that out of my system… :)
Listen, I’ll be PISSED if Rachel turns out to be the shooter. While Kona says that she’s extraneous, I think she, in a way (And much more so than Reese, whom I expected would be) Crews’ salvation. At some point he has to let go of the revenge and start living his life. I expect Rachel to be not just a part of that, but the reason it occurs.
My guess is on… Kristen Sheppard.
Ok, seriously, I think its Bodner, or someone that’s somehow related to him. Curious, though, is why Tims of all people was in his dream(?).
*POST AUTHOR*
I don’t think that Rachel herself is extraneous; I agree with you that she’s important. My point was just that she hasn’t been doing much since she moved in with Charlie.
To be honest though, its not like she’d be doing a whole lot before hand though.
I think we agree though that we’d like to be seeing more of her.
I’m still pissed I didn’t recognize her.
What amuses me, Franklin, is:
It was YOUR choice not to watch the episode before going to the internet.
It was YOUR choice to not only go to the internet, but go to a web site that has TV reviews!
Hello!
Common Sense 101 should be your next course.
Actually, the shooter could (possibly) be unrelated to any and all of the suspects. It could be a totally random walk up shooting.
I used to work as a police dispatcher, and I handled a 911 call from a woman one night who answered her door and was shot twice in the chest (she survived). Turns out the bad guy was given an address to “go shoot anyone who answered the door” (due to a bad drug deal), but the shooter was also dyslexic and read the address wrong. Wrong house.
Ooops, his bad.
Come on though… Its a TV show… Do you really think its a random act?
I voted for Bodner but don’t think it was anybody on the list. I believe it is someone who may be gotten to know that Mickey Rayborn is in the fold and perhaps looking to make amends for past digressions now that he’s terminal.
I keep thinking of the line when Charlie is again told he’s making a big mistake “I hear that a lot lately”, it turns out somebody was right…
Ouch I didn’t realize we no longer have the editorial grace period.
To clarify my second sentence: I believe that the shooter is someone involved with an not yet unveiled player in the conspiracy. Someone who is nervous now that Charlie and Mickey Rayborn are palling around.
I don’t really care enough to argue… But since I already bitched (a little ;-) ). I agree with Franklin and I agree with everyone else. Yes it is a spoiler, yes the show already aired. I believe three days isn’t really enough time to assume almost everyone has seen the show. It often takes me about one or even two weeks to catch up on shows I REALLY like. Only my absolute favorites are seen within the next 48 hours…
It is your site, you can do whatever you want with it. But I think there would have been different choices for the title without being spoilerish. “Who was the shooter?” comes to mind. Everyone who saw the show knows what Kona means and everyone who didn’t see it isn’t robbed his or her WTF?!-moment of the season…
We’ll be posting a site-wide spoiler policy sometime soon so nobody should be surprised. I’ll be included in the About page at the top of the site too.
I gotta say, this article spoiled the show for me too. Sometimes you just don’t have time to watch a show until the weekend. While I’m not quite as upset at that jerk Franklin, I do HATE being spoiled. There’s nothing wrong with the article but that was absolutely the wrong title to use.
Don’t forget that all of us probably watch multiple shows. Maybe I’d like to read Clique Clack’s commentary on show ABC without having show XYZ ruined. That’s not too much to ask. The fact that the author is defending her actions is most troubling.
Generally, when a website proves untrustworthy and spoils shows regularly, I stop going there. I have a three strikes and you’re out system. I think posting a site-wide spoiler policy is a fantastic idea.
This posting didn’t bother me – it was 3 days after the episode – but the original post about the episode (Charlie Shoots His Father Hello) did bother me.
I think it’s important that you realize that we’ve been in a post-TiVo world for a long time now. In fact, since I never watch TV over the air, reading CliqueClack posts on RSS is often how I find out there’s been a new episode of a show. I don’t know what day “Life” is on, I just check for it on the TiVo or on the net after I hear about it here.
And if I could hear about it without a major before-the-jump spoiler, I’d be much happier.
One thing I forgot to mention in my reply above… Morjana commented “It was YOUR choice to not only go to the internet, but go to a web site that has TV reviews”
Personally, I don’t go to TV review web sites. I get RSS feeds on a broad variety of topics, one of which happens to be the feed from this site. I do this so that I can read the feeds at my leisure, and so that I can read TV episode reviews on my timeline, AFTER I watch an episode of a show.
Since the feeds only display the titles of the articles, if a spoiler is in the title, a show for me gets spoiled whether I read the article or not, whether I go to a TV review web site or not.
I realize Morjana wasn’t talking to me personally, but I felt I needed to mention this. Some of us stumble upon the spoilers inadvertently if they are in the title, and it can be very frustrating. So please, reviewers, a little bit of understanding, and spoiler free titles, please.
Brooke,
I say this respectfully, but even if you’re just getting RSS feeds, isn’t it still buyer-beware?
Yours is the best arguement I’ve read to date, particularly with emphasis on the title. However, if I haven’t watched a particular episode of a show that I know gets reviewed here or elsewhere, I generally avoid those particular website. Hence, I change my actions based on my, er… Actions.
Now why, and again, I truly do say this respectfully and with no sarcasim, why should I expect others to change what they are doing based on my needs?
More Spoilers:
Barack Obama was elected president.
“The Shield” ended and Vic lived.
Leonard got a girlfriend on “The Big Bang Theory.”
Hope I didn’t ruin TV for anyone.
Dammit! Guess I can delete the election coverage off my DVR now, thanks a lot! ;)
I agree too about the spoilers being in the title. I don’t care if they are before the jump because if I havn’t watched it yet I skip everything after the title. But I come to this site everyday to read the tv news or reviews of shows that I have already watched. I guess I’ll have to only enter this site on Sundays after I have watched every single episode of every single show that I watch. Either that or start watching 4 hours of tv every night on top of everything else I have going on before I have to get some sleep for work the next day. Ah fuckit, I’m gonna go take a nap. :-P
At least we got a lively discussion out of this *snicker*
The problem is that we had this already on “that other page” and ended up with a “not in the teaser” policy about stuff that happened on a show the day before. Also I think we ended up with a 24 hour timespan where something shouldn’t be discussed or mentioned in the teaser. And the title/heading is part of the teaser.
I got burned in the past pretty bad by somebody who I then considered a remote friend. He talked about “Lost” and what he thought about the show – I didn’t read his disclaimer that he was two weeks behind, and when I talked about the two recent episodes and guessed who was in the coffin he practically told me to go to hell. So I know the problem to be honest.
Which brings me back to this episode. If Franklin comes across the title “Who shot Charlie Crews” then he got “spoilered”. But again – this is a cop drama. Why is it such a spoiler that a cop on a cop show gets shot?
The reason why I think he is so pissed is because he, at first glance, also read the bold headings naming the people who might’ve shot Crews. Which means he must’ve opened the whole post OR he did not stop reading the post after reading the title. So it’s either that he reads this website in an RSS reader that displays whole posts – which gets past the teaser automatically and makes this his fault for reading the page that way, or he opened the whole page directly himself, which again makes it his fault, or he simply kept on reading after he read the title. Again, his fault.
To be honest I didn’t read past the first paragraph in his insulting comment. I know when to shift people who go nuts into the white noise part of my brain ^^;
So I don’t think we need a better policy here, just write it down, post it somewhere, and next time reply with a neat “RTFM” when somebody complains.
CC never did anything wrong concerning spoilers. That other page did. Frequently.
OMG. People. Take some responsibility for your own actions! Don’t go reading websites until you’re caught up on a show you follow! Set up your RSS reader so you have to physically click on the specific category or feed for those shows or sites that might spoil you, if you have alternative viewing habits!
I HATE that society has become all about blaming other people for everything that happens to them — even when those things are WITHIN YOUR CONTROL.
Geez f’ing Louise.
What about those of us that choose not to read the RSS feeds and like to come to this site everyday for tv news, reviews, and features? Is it too much to ask to not put a major spoiler in the title? I don’t give a crap if its before the jump because if I’m not caught up on the show thats in the title I just scroll down. But I come on this site everyday to see whats going on in tv news and scroll through the new posts so I have to look at the titles to see what they’re about. There were plenty of clever ways she could have titled this post without spoiling it. It’s impossible for me to watch every single episode live as it airs or even within 3 days of it airing. Some of us have a life and can’t sit on our ass and watch tv 24/7. I can only get in 2 hours or maybe 3-4 hours if I’m multi-tasking. I have to catch up on the weekends. Some of us follow 10 or more shows and would like to discuss some of them right after watching them without being spoiled on the others we have not had the pleasure of watching yet.