Justice For The People With Judge Milian - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/20/2023 at 3:29 PM, patty1h said:

How does JM not roll her eyes to heaven when hearing some of the bullshit scenarios they are coming up with in these cases?

I was going to try and find another case on YT but after reading this summary, I don't think I'll bother.

[Paperclips]

The local Station that still airs the People's Court repeats - aired a Commercial for her new show - on another channel.  That show is going down.

You can't do scripted Court Shows.  It just doesn't work. 

There was a Court Show that was scripted - they were up-front about it and only about cases where the pay-out was big - millions.  It was awful.  I think it lasted less than a season.

You really can't do scripted with a Court Show - it just doesn't work.

 

[laprin]

On 9/11/2023 at 9:01 AM, DoctorK said:

Honestly, I wish Judge Milian had retired after her long and successful run with Peoples Court. This show feels low rent. The second episode is this afternoon. Maybe it will get better.

I agree that it looks low rent. I'm not sure why Judge Milian wanted to continue doing a court show. I've watched 3 episodes now and she generally seems less enthusiastic on this show. I'm sure she misses Douglas. She has zero interaction with her current bailiff. Why do these producers not realize we want the judge and the bailiff. It's like a package deal. Did they read none of the complaints when JJ's new show didn't have Byrd?  Hoping it gets better. 

[Bookworm13]

I decided to give this show another try to see if things had improved any. They haven’t - still bad actors doing dumb cases, but I noticed they had a q&a segment with Judge John. I’m not sure a real person submitted the question but it was a nice break from the case. 
 

Like @AngelaHunter said above, this is insulting to long-time viewers of TPC(and I’m not even super long-term). 

[Paperclips]

2 hours ago, Bookworm13 said:

I decided to give this show another try to see if things had improved any. They haven’t - still bad actors doing dumb cases, but I noticed they had a q&a segment with Judge John. I’m not sure a real person submitted the question but it was a nice break from the case. 
 

Like @AngelaHunter said above, this is insulting to long-time viewers of TPC(and I’m not even super long-term). 

I'll say it again, Reality Court Shows just doesn't work with Scripted.  I'm amazed she agreed to do it  

It's getting bad when she is dragging her husband in to comment.

Posters have said she doesn't need the money, so maybe she likes the lime-light? It was a step down any way you look at it.  

I watched 2 episodes and gave up.    

It is just Sad.

[patty1h]

If they made the cases not sound like they were made up by teenagers, I'd be a little more tolerant and accepting.  Yesterday's two cases were... silly:  1) a woman jumped out a window to escape a jealous girlfriend and is suing for hurting herself in the fall.  2) a guy suing his brothers fiancee for jilting him at the altar.

These cases are so DUMB it's hard to shut off my brain and not nitpick every stupid turn.   TPC had some really ridiculous cases but at least they were REAL people with spontaneous words and reactions and viewers could relate to them on some level.   Not any more.

[Bazinga]

I have watched all but one episode (first day, episode 2 did not air here due to 9/11 commemoration ceremonies), so here is my full review of this show as a long-time People's Court viewer, if anyone is interested.

The intro reminds me of the "Rhoda" opening credits ( "My name is Rhoda Morgenstern. I was born in the Bronx, New York in December, 1941. I've always felt responsible for World War II. The first thing I remember liking that liked me back was food. I had a bad puberty; it lasted 17 years. I'm a high school graduate. I went to art school. My entrance exam was on a book of matches. I decided to move out of the house when I was 24; my mother still refers to this as the time I ran away from home. Eventually I ran to Minneapolis, where it's cold, and I figured I'd keep better. Now I'm back in Manhattan. New York, this is your last chance!") without the humor.  Here, MM skips over her main claim to fame, being judge on "The People's Court" for 22 seasons.  If you are not including that information, then why bother with a biographical opening?  On an everyday basis, the spoken word intro about MM's life, trying to validate JM's credentials as a lawyer and judge, doesn't work and is annoying.  Cringeworthy is her little dance sequence. 

First, some differences between the two shows: I very much miss Douglas, the bailiff.  He was nice and likeable, this bailiff adds nothing with no interaction with JM.  This guy seems like a knockoff.  I wonder why TPC announcer is included and Douglas isn't?  The same announcer is a bad idea, as it invokes comparison to TPC and this show loses the comparison.  I do not like, when we return from break, the case just resumes; I like TPC's recap before testimony begins.  Also missing is Doug's hallterview, instead we have a 'Judge Judy' like commentary by each litigant without anyone challenging their viewpoint.  I am very much fine without Harvey's post-case commentary and especially like not having Harvey's street peanut gallery.  The segments with Judge John are sporadic, and so far seem to be opinions on legal questions and not the terrible personal questions TPC judges' segment devolved into.

Second, the cases lean toward being slightly odd/cute rather than the straightforward loans, contractors, security deposit, dog bite cases of TPC.  The first week overloaded on precoscious kids.  Odd/cute leads to a feeling of are these cases even real or just cutesy ideas?  This leads to the overall feeling that that this show is fake.  

Third, the fakeness.  The show comes off fake.  Fake equals lame.  The disclaimer at the end says that some of it is reenactmants but it all seems fake.  The cases all start out with the litigants giving each other dirty looks.  Just comes off as acting and ridiculous.  The "litigants" speak too well and what they say seems planned.  The litigants try too hard to be "interesting."  Almost every case has the litigants having back and forths.  MM tolerates this until she doesn't.  The judge also tolerates speaking out of turn but at some point, in almost every case, she lays the hammer down that she is talking in order to come off as tough, IMO.  She allows it until she doesn't and then slaps the litigants down to exert her power.  Happens too often; it seems intentional.       

Fourth, cases dragged out for a half hour.  None of these cases are worth 30 minutes; dragging them out makes them even more tedious and boring.  This edit was inspired by the case of the plaintiff who grinded with defendant's boyfriend while dancing at a party, who, when threatened by the defendant, ran to the bathroom and then jumped out the window, injuring her ankle.  No, was not 30 minutes worthy and the added length made a stupid, ridiculous case with fake, annoying litigants even more boring.

Fifth, I have found some of JM's decisions questionable.  I wish there were more (any?) posts actually discussing individual cases but, alas, nobody seems to care enough to post about the cases. 

My overarching complaint is that the cases seem designed to be cute/unusual/"interesting" rather than real and, coupled with the litigants probably being (bad) actors, the show comes off totally fake, cheap (the courtroom set is cheap looking even by TV court show standards), boring and uninteresting.  Also, bring back Douglas (especially) and Doug.  Middling and missable but so far I keep watching but not actually enjoying.  Watching kind of feels like a duty or chore and that is not good.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Bazinga

[patty1h]

Another thing that amuses me about this production is that they had to hire someone to produce fake documents for the bailiff to take up to the judge and fake texts in fake phones for JM to read.  All to make this phony show seem authentic.

[rcc]

JM was on Tamron's show before the premiere of the new show. She bounced out with a lowcut dress and obviously loved the applause from the audience. I think she loves the limelight. New fake show takes her there again. Doesn't make any difference how smart she is and that she was brilliant in law school. It's the fame she craves.

[babyhouseman]

3 hours ago, Bazinga said:

The cases all start out with the litigants giving each other dirty looks.

Yeah, they shake their heads and look at each other with disgust like they're ready to rumble. 

[AngelaHunter]

On 9/28/2023 at 3:09 PM, Bazinga said:

Cringeworthy is her little dance sequence. 

Wait... she does a dance? Maybe I better go back to YT and check this out.

The "Rhoda" monologue is hysterical, by the way! 😄

 

ETA: Okay, just tried to watch the case of the flea-infested mattress. No. First of all, never EVER buy a used mattress. EVER.

Second, I got as far as the (bad)actor def making grand, sweeping gestures about spritzing all these mattresses (filled with all kinds of bodily fluids, mold and worse) with lavender. No can do.  I watched for one minute and twenty-six seconds.

Edited October 3, 2023 by AngelaHunter

[Paperclips]

Mathis appears to be scripted too.

These People are rich - why lower yourself?

[CrazyInAlabama]

All of the shows by Byron Allen's production company are heavily scripted.   His company produces all of the TV court shows, except the three by Judge Judy's production company. 

It has a successful formula and sticks to it.    Unfortunately, we all saw Judge M on the previous show, and this new show is a poor imitation of that.   The other Allen shows air on my local Fox channel, but not Judge M's, unless I can't find it. 

[aemom]

I'm STILL working my way through TPC first run episodes - I'm on July 12, so almost done, and I thought to myself "Has her new show started yet?"

I found this forum and I'm so disappointed to hear that it's scripted with actors. 😥

Not interested in some fake court show. I guess that i will have to find a new laundry show once I'm through the other episodes.

I wish they would show really old reruns of TPC, I'm not really interested in seeing ones again from a few years ago.

I will miss all the snark - I always go to the forums once I watch some eps to read what y'all thought. 

[AngelaHunter]

On 10/13/2023 at 5:16 PM, aemom said:

I will miss all the snark - I always go to the forums once I watch some eps to read what y'all thought.

Me too.☹️

[patty1h]

New episode called "Carted Away" today.  Plaintiff starts off giving the stink eye to the defendant, as these cases usually start.  He explains that he was loudly arguing with his now ex-girlfriend in a supermarket parking lot when a woman came over and aggressively pushed herself and her shopping cart between the couple.  During this incident, the cart hit the mans car and made several scratches, which he is suing for.

The defendant says she is retired and used to volunteer in woman's shelters, so she was nervous when seeing the couple verbally arguing and the plaintiff's GF had ended up being bent over the hood of the car trying to avoid him.  She also said that the plaintiff made a move towards her (defendant) and she pushed the cart to block him.  That's when it hit his car, but says some of the dent/scratches were already present and she doesn't owe him $600 to repair it. 

The judge explained that in the law if the defendant thought she was stopping a physical assault by pushing the cart in the way to cause a distraction, and also to stop a potential assault of herself, she was justified in her actions and does not owe him for the damage.

[patty1h]

Sheesh - today's case is ludicrous.  Plaintiff gave her now ex-boyfriend money for mental health therapy, but wants the $1500 back because she found out that he was getting "spank-o-therapy", which she considers to be sexual services.  The BF says he wanted to try this alternative form of therapy and it helped him so the plaintiff can't request a refund.  This case scraped the bottom of the barrel when they brought up the so-called doctor who invented spank-o-therapy and he showed his spanking technique.  After some questioning by JM, we see that the show rolled in the bottom half of a mannequin, with pants on(!), and she asks the doc to spank it to show how he provides the service to his patients.  Spank spank spank.  I roll my eyes.

The plaintiff says she felt humiliated and taken advantage of because she wanted her BF to get help, but this "doctor" is unlicensed and has no real credentials.  She won this dumb case.  

[Pepper the Cat]

Spank-o-therapy has got to be one of the most cringe inducing episodes ever. 
Ugh.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Pepper the Cat

[Maverick]

 After the severe disappointment of the first couple of episodes I never made any effort to watch this embarrassing trainwreck.   I happened to catch an episode the other day about a film crew being kicked of a campsite for underage drinking.   It seemed slightly--and I emphasize slightly--less staged and cartoonish than the early episodes so I thought maybe someone saw how bad it was and was trying to improve it.   The description of this episode tells me...NOPE!

[AngelaHunter]

On 11/3/2023 at 2:08 PM, patty1h said:

he was getting "spank-o-therapy", which she considers to be sexual services

Maybe I'm making a mistake by not watching this. Or maybe not, since it seems to have devolved into a TMZ/Dr. Phil titillation fest. TPC joins Clown World.

Funny. I got a (well-deserved)spanking from my mother when I was about 6. It was not pleasant.

[JamaicaJoe]

I am a long time Peoples Court fan and fan of Judge Milan. I really hope her contract protects her because this show is ruining her professional stature.  First the litigants are apparently all actors. The cases are scripted. It all falls very flat. Second the courtroom is very sterile and outdated looking. Finally, the 30 minute shows are 50% commercial interruptions and allow barely one case. The worst part of this is that it is blatantly phony. Judge Milan it is not too late to scuttle this show.

[Bookworm13]

On 10/13/2023 at 11:05 AM, Paperclips said:

Mathis appears to be scripted too.

Is he still calling people crackheads? I remember stumbling on his old show years ago and being shocked he was able to get away with that. 
 

This show must really be struggling - I caught the beginning of the dumb “he sabotaged me by making my chicken wings too spicy” for the 4th time this morning, and no that’s not a typo. The 3rd airing was just last week. Curious if other people are getting insane repeats or if my local affiliate has just screwed things up(highly likely). 
 

I’m both intrigued and horrified by the spanking case discussed above. Do I dare check youtube and watch for laughs? 
 

If anyone needs a good laugh, in the recently added shows section, one is called “ This terrible show is so beneath Judge Milan” and I’m only here to see if they had officially changed this threads title. Alas, they did not. 

[Maverick]

I don't have FB or anything like that but I assume MM does.  Has anyone been commenting on how bad this show is and asking why she lowered herself to do it?

[Bookworm13]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

I don't have FB or anything like that but I assume MM does.  Has anyone been commenting on how bad this show is and asking why she lowered herself to do it?

There is an unofficial JM FB page I came across when this show first debuted, and a majority of the people think this show is awful and hate that JM is doing a scripted, poorly acted show. However, there are a handful who think this show is great and will argue with and fight anyone who dare says anything bad. And there’s one person who says this is better than TPC because JM can let loose and show her personality more because she was too serious on TPC( I don’t get it, but whatever). It’s fun to occasionally scroll through the posts when I have nothing better to do, but it’s only ever on my phone which doesn’t have FB downloaded on it - don’t want to risk mis-clicking on something 😬

[Only The Truth]

I am so disappointed  in her new show!! I get that it is reality ,but I preferred when they had a real plaintiff and defendant, not these horrible actors.  At least try to make it look real. Not everyone walks into a court room and gives their opponent the smug look, eye roll or death stare!! Tell your director that they need to learn how to direct! It is off my watch/dvr list! 

[mtbingmom]

They showed spank-o-therapy again on Friday. This was my first time seeing it. OH. MY. GOD. How can she not be embarrassed? I'm just speechless. 🙄 

Also the show hasn't been on that long, but It's already into reruns

[Paperclips]

i think the Writer's Strike might have held them up.  It is clearly scripted as is Mathis.  I turned on Mathis for a few minutes - Defendant was the worst actor I've seen in awhile.  

The Sets are cheap too.

I'd be surprised if either of them gets renewed.

[Beonnd]

I watched all seasons of TPC I really like Judge MM but this show seems fake to me. Are these people actors?  These cases seem fake as well. Bring back TPC like cases. This is horrible. Very sad. 

[clee]

Producer Byron Allen is not known for exciting tv. Did People's Court producers block Marilyn from talking about her iconic history there. Wasn't she the longest serving judge on there? I would never cut that out of my bio. Makes zero sense unless legally prevented from doing so. And why prevent it from being mentioned? P Court would benefit if the producers ever want to sell or continue the brand.

[Primal Slayer]

...anyone still watching this?

[patty1h]

I watched about half of the first season, until the stupidity of the cases got unbearable.  It's still programmed in my DVR and I see that new episodes return next week.  I'll check those out to see if someone steps up and takes the reins back on this mess. 

I will hold out hope that the show changes format and stops using writers and paid actors to put on lame ass "court plays".

[patty1h]

So I've watched most of the episodes since the batch of new cases dropped and I must admit that they've been mostly... fairly normal.   They seem to have tamed down the more outrageous backstories for the cases.  Here are a few examples from the last 1.5 week:

• A woman fired for being frequently late to work but wanting compensation for a prize she had won at an office party before the firing (She lost)
• A woman wanting a refund for the food she had catered to an outdoor party because her next door neighbor mowed his lawn and grass clippings blew into her yard and landed on the food (She lost)
• A man sues his friend for not properly watching his dog while pet sitting (Defendant lost)

I'm sure that they're still using actors because the litigants are well-dressed and articulate, but they seem to have been coached to take it down a notch.

Edited February 6 by patty1h

[patty1h]

"Till Death Tooth Us Part" - They're back to the stupid setups for cases.  Today was a 50-something woman (Nancy) who met a 25 year old guy (Patrick) on a dating app and is now suing for $475 for the repair of a chipped front tooth.

They were on a date on their 3rd week anniversary, and as Nancy  bit into her dessert cannoli, something hard in it broke her tooth... it was an engagement ring. 

Patrick's side of the story was he set up this romantic dinner and had even arranged for a string quartet to come in and serenade them.  Patrick stepped away when the quartet arrived and that is when Nancy took the bite. He feels that it's not his fault as he told her "don't start without me" as he left the table and she took it upon herself to pick up the dessert.  

JM tells Patrick that his gesture was nice, but if there was no hard object in the cannoli, Nancy's tooth wouldn't have been damaged.  She warned that no one should ever put a ring in food, champagne glass, etc. because it's dangerous.

Edited February 7 by patty1h

[nora1992]

I’ve only seen a few episodes l, but the latest was the frustrated groom and the videographer.  The would-be bride had a lucky escape.  Sometimes incompetence pays off, even if not for the intended recipient.

[chadsee]

The episode season 1 episode 59 overdosed about the young girl who got the morphine pills by telling that boy she'd tell he was gay that father needs to calm down, get a hold of his own daughter and his household. The entire situation is his daughter's fault

[patty1h]

Today's silly case involved two sisters and spilled candied yams.  It's Christmas day and sister Angela is late, which causes her other sisters to have attitudes, particularly the plaintiff sister who wants $300 for the cleaning of her carpet.

When Angela shows up with a load of food, sis #3 blocks her way with the fridge door, just to be a passive-aggressive jerk.  Angela loses her grip on her various dishes and drops yams onto the carpet.  She attempts to clean up, but there are two spots. Thus, plaintiff had to get a professional in and was charged $300.   Whatever.

I think the budget for the actors may have been slashed, because it looked like the defendant got the cheapest, tackiest wig I've seen since this show started.

[Beonnd]

I really like JM but this show is not even close to TPC standard. These seem scripted to me. Very disappointed.  Could the set be any cheaper?  And what is with the last comments of the defendants and plaintiffs?  No court I have ever been has allowed that in the court room. I miss TPC. We sh Judge Judy would have given JM a show. 

[seacliffsal]

I finally watched a few episodes and am in disbelief that JMM is so desperate to be on the t.v. that she agreed to this show.  It seems very scripted (as you all have already mentioned), but what really got me is that each participant has a manilla folder that must have the script in it as they never present evidence from it and several 'actors' have continually referenced it before speaking their 'lines.'

And, I was really confused when during the intro autobiography MM states that she realized that she was a better talker than listener.  Hmmmm, aren't judges supposed to LISTEN to the legal arguments and then make a decision based on evidence and testimony?  You know, testimony to which a judge will LISTEN???  Yet, MM seems to take real pride in this revelation that she's such a good talker and not a good listener...

[Bazinga]

Thought I would post to give the show a bump.  New episodes started airing last week.  No real improvement in quality (yet I still watch).  Yesterday's episode was a father who, while watching defendant's son, fed his son and the defendant's son dog treats.  Defendant's son got sick afterward from the treats or from eating too much pizza.  Defendant is a standup comedian and during his show, put a spotlight on the plaintiff and made jokes about him subjecting him and his son to ridicule.  He was suing for that and the cost of tickets to the charity show.  Defendant was countersuing for money he needed to spend on childcare, as he won't allow plaintiff to watch his son.  Plaintiff lost as JM did not think defendant's actions amounted to anything.  Ridiculous case trying to be cute that just felt fake.  Judge Milian ate a dog treat and seemed to go out of her way to show that she didn't like it, though she did not need to eat the treat and whether the treat is edible has nothing to do with the case, though plaintiff seemed to think it was important.

[patty1h]

I have this in my DVR to record, but I end up deleting most w/o watching.  Since the new season started I caught 4 random cases and they were lame.  All these cases were people wanting money for things that seemed pretty frivolous.   

**A son wanting $9K from his father.  Son came to stay with dad after his mom died and dad kept texting that he was having a hard time coping.  Son makes a deal that he'll stay with Dad for 4 months if Dad will give him the $9K he will lose for missing out on an acting role.  Son arrives, but finds that Dad has a new girlfriend -- son and GF do not get along.   Son leaves and thinks that Dad should still pay him.

**A woman has her fridge stocked with expensive seafood for an upcoming party.  Her uncle comes over and decides that the fish is going bad and tosses it all - niece wants $400 from him.

**A woman has a "living funeral" for herself and asked a friend to speak at it.  The woman had been in a car wreck earlier in the year which made her feel life is fragile and she wanted to have a party while she is still above ground.  She said this friend turned the occasion into a roast, making fun of her.  The friend says the woman screened a loooong video presentation of her life -- guests started looking at their watches, so he decided to insert some humor into the event.  The funeral holder wanted the friend to reimburse her for the cost of the funeral/party as she says he ruined it.

**A woman tells a work friend that she is pregnant - the mom-to-be (MTB) gets a "Congrats" balloon bouquet next day and now her coworkers know about the upcoming birth.  MTB is mad because she didn't want that news out yet and thinks that the friend owes her for the therapy she needed after she miscarried that child.

I couldn't tell you how these cases end because I gave up caring... just that there was a definite theme here.

Edited May 2 by patty1h

[Bazinga]

11 hours ago, patty1h said:

**A son wanting $9K from his father.  Son came to stay with dad after his mom died and dad kept texting that he was having a hard time coping.  Son makes a deal that he'll stay with Dad for 4 months if Dad will give him the $9K he will lose for missing out on an acting role.  Son arrives, but finds that Dad has a new girlfriend -- son and GF do not get along.   Son leaves and thinks that Dad should still pay him.

**A woman has her fridge stocked with expensive seafood for an upcoming party.  Her uncle comes over and decides that the fish is going bad and tosses it all - niece wants $400 from him.

**A woman has a "living funeral" for herself and asked a friend to speak at it.  The woman had been in a car wreck earlier in the year which made her feel life is fragile and she wanted to have a party while she is still above ground.  She said this friend turned the occasion into a roast, making fun of her.  The friend says the woman screened a loooong video presentation of her life -- guests started looking at their watches, so he decided to insert some humor into the event.  The funeral holder wanted the friend to reimburse her for the cost of the funeral/party as she says he ruined it.

**A woman tells a work friend that she is pregnant - the mom-to-be (MTB) gets a "Congrats" balloon bouquet next day and now her coworkers know about the upcoming birth.  MTB is mad because she didn't want that news out yet and thinks that the friend owes her for the therapy she needed after she miscarried that child.

I couldn't tell you how these cases end because I gave up caring... just that there was a definite theme here.

The results are in:

1) The son wins.  JM was disgusted by 60 year old father having a relationship with a 25 year old repeat gold digger a month after his wife died.  That is all she cared about in making her decision, without even caring about the promise itself or discussing son's damages in any way.  I did not agree with her decision or at least for the reason the decision was made.  Why wasn't the son considered an at-will employee who quit the job and doesn't get paid for work he didn't do?  To me, the father is entitled to date anyone he wants and it is the son's problem if he doesn't like it. JM was punishing the father because his behavior disgusted her and he showed no embarrassment as she questioned him.

2) It was daughter-in-law vs. father-in-law.  Daughter-in-law won as father-in-law should not have disposed of the fish without asking daughter-in-law.  JM was more interested in the family dynamics then the stupid fish.  Father-in-law spanked the child and had no respect for the dil and huband/son wanted nothing to do with any of it.  That is what concerned JM. 

3) The speaker defendant won as JM thought the living funeral was a stupid idea in general, she should have known the chosen speaker was a jokester and she had no damages.

4) MTB loses as she told this "secret" to others, didn't tell the friend that it was a secret and, again, no actual damages.  MTB tried to claim she took off from work to avoid people but JM thought it was the normal grieving process.

To me, the cases all try to be *cutesy*; to look cute and different in synopsis blurbs on paper, but come off stupid in practice, especially with what appears to be fake litigants sneering at each other over petty, stupid nonsense.  

Judge John is back in mid case segments before going to commercial asking JM legal questions. 

I watch but really don't enjoy this show.  I think the cases are stupid and uninteresting and JM is leaning in to being cute and making arbitrary decisions based more on which party she likes.  I wish this show were more popular, so that I could get feedback about whether some of JM's decisions are wrong and/or arbitrary like I think.

Edited May 3 by Bazinga

[patty1h]

Thanks for the updates @Bazinga.  I agree that these cases may sound good on paper but a lot of them feel like frivolous complaints with no legal merit and why waste time on them?  The spoiled fish, funeral party and the MTB seemed to be more on the "people do dumb things" than lawsuit material.