S01.E01: Pilot

[DanaK]

Quote

Sneak Peek of CBS series that premieres tonight September 22 2024. An encore will air October 10 2024

Synopsis: After achieving success in her younger years, brilliant septuagenarian Madeline Matlock uses her unassuming demeanor to make her way into a position at a prestigious law firm, Jacobson Moore, in a special sneak peek of the series premiere of the CBS Original series MATLOCK, Sunday, Sept 22 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network, and streaming on Paramount+

 

[AnimeMania]

   
Nicole de Boer as Carlin  

Eme Ikwuakor as Elijah Walker

Matt Baram as Ezra Radcliffe 

[Stats Queen]

Well, that was a surprising ending. Was bored until that, but now I’m looking forward to it.

[DanaK]

I enjoyed this quite a bit and then…plot twist. I was not expecting that ending. I thought Matty was both naive and very crafty for most of the episode and therefore rather endearing. I’m not sure what to think now. Very intriguing

Edited September 23 by DanaK

[SoMuchTV]

I’m not sure what to think about Kathy’s little “request” at the end, like “help us keep our little secret until everyone’s had a chance to see it.”  Your show just aired in prime time on a major broadcast network! We aren’t supposed to talk about it until the “official” premiere??

[Pepper the Cat]

I was waffling about this until the end. Wow. Now I’m intrigued.

[DanaK]

1 minute ago, SoMuchTV said:

I’m not sure what to think about Kathy’s little “request” at the end, like “help us keep our little secret until everyone’s had a chance to see it.”  Your show just aired in prime time on a major broadcast network! We aren’t supposed to talk about it until the “official” premiere??

This is basically the premiere. I think she was just saying give people a few hours 

[Lamb18]

I liked it. I'm in Maddy's age category so I liked the idea of an old woman being successful at getting back into the workforce. But the ending is what's really going to make this show interesting.

[Kleav]

I worry that people will think this is a Matlock reboot and miss out on what promises to be a clever show. 

[Chaos Theory]

Expected this to be awful but it wasn't awful and not quite a reboot either.   I liked the big twist at the end.  Definitely a Sunday show and something I will keep on my DVR and likely not watch live but it has an interesting premise for as long as it can keep old lady looking to get evidence on the law firm she holds responsible for her daughter's death going (because that is the interesting thing for me).   The case of the week format has never been my favorite.....but it has its moments.

Edited September 23 by Chaos Theory

[Pepper the Cat]

17 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

I’m not sure what to think about Kathy’s little “request” at the end, like “help us keep our little secret until everyone’s had a chance to see it.”  Your show just aired in prime time on a major broadcast network! We aren’t supposed to talk about it until the “official” premiere??

???
Are you referring to Kathy Bates? Did she make an announcement? We got nothing in Canada.

[Irlandesa]

I liked the first ten-fifteen minutes.  Then I felt it got a bit bogged down when it came to the case-of-the-week and I started missing So Help Me Todd.  But then the ending was a nice and exciting twist.

I will definitely watch and hope the mysteries or cases get better than the one in this episode. 

 

11 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

Definitely a Sunday show

It's actually going to be a Thursday show and paired with Elsbeth.  I think this after-football Sunday preview was just a way to promote the show before the regular Sunday shows return.

[SoMuchTV]

4 minutes ago, Pepper the Cat said:

???
Are you referring to Kathy Bates? Did she make an announcement? We got nothing in Canada.

Yes - during the end credits, they showed Kathy Bates in a window on the screen, saying basically what I paraphrased above. I definitely got the vibe of “please don’t talk about the twist until the ‘real’ premiere” because otherwise, wouldn’t they make a similar request about every episode of every show where there’s any kind of a twist?

[Snow Apple]

Like a few others, I wasn't sure about continuing this but that ending sucked me in and I'll be back. I also loved Mattie introducing older references to her young coworkers and then hearing that old Matlock theme song.

[MerBearHou]

I liked it and will absolutely return for more.  The twist at the end was a great idea and one I did not see coming whatsoever.  The “I’m so old” and “she’s so old” lines could get old (pun intended) real, real fast for me.  So we shall see on that balance.  Loved the Matlock song and Andy Griffith’s face on the phone at the end — cute move, show.

[Rickster]

44 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

I’m not sure what to think about Kathy’s little “request” at the end, like “help us keep our little secret until everyone’s had a chance to see it.”  Your show just aired in prime time on a major broadcast network! We aren’t supposed to talk about it until the “official” premiere??

I think Paramount+ is streaming it tomorrow and there is at least one rebroadcast of the pilot. Not everyone is watching it live, so I think they want other viewers to have a chance to be surprised by the twist. That is probably impossible.

[dancingdreamer]

I love Kathy Bates,  I had a feeling  there was more to her character. I so enjoyed the ending. 

[shapeshifter]

59 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

I’m not sure what to think about Kathy’s little “request” at the end, like “help us keep our little secret until everyone’s had a chance to see it.”  Your show just aired in prime time on a major broadcast network! We aren’t supposed to talk about it until the “official” premiere??

40 minutes ago, Pepper the Cat said:

???
Are you referring to Kathy Bates? Did she make an announcement? We got nothing in Canada.

30 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

Yes - during the end credits, they showed Kathy Bates in a window on the screen, saying basically what I paraphrased above. I definitely got the vibe of “please don’t talk about the twist until the ‘real’ premiere” because otherwise, wouldn’t they make a similar request about every episode of every show where there’s any kind of a twist?

@Pepper the Cat, interesting that you didn't see it. 
I wonder if the 4th wall break at the end was originally only supposed to be shown to the reviewers who get early releases?

For a pilot, it was decent.

 

 

[possibilities]

I didn't watch the credits, so I didn't see the request. I suspect I'm not the only one.

I thought the episode was okay. I was excited for it, having enjoyed the promos they've been airing for a while now. So even if I didn't think the episode was great, I was thinking that I like the premise and that I'd watch for a while and see how it goes.

But the twist ending? Holy cats! I am all in for that. ALL IN!

I hope they pull it off-- I thought Kathy Bates was surprisingly not as great as I've always found her to be in the past, and it wasn't just her. There was something about the episode where I felt like all the characters were kind of marking their paces and not really in it, like it was a stiff rehearsal, and not the final product. I hope that stiffness comes off in the next episode, because I want this to be great and I think it coud be, but it's not quite there yet.

Butm again: that ending! Hooboy!! Big yes.

[Starchild]

24 minutes ago, dancingdreamer said:

I love Kathy Bates,  I had a feeling  there was more to her character. I so enjoyed the ending. 

She's the reason I tuned in, not really expecting anything exciting from a CBS procedural.

But wow that ending! I think the last time I tuned in to a CBS procedural based on casting and then got excited by the show itself was Person of Interest (yay Michael Emerson!)

I am also in. They'll have to work at losing me now.

Edited to add: Sam Anderson!

Edited September 23 by Starchild

[SoMuchTV]

14 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I wonder if the 4th wall break at the end was originally only supposed to be shown to the reviewers who get early releases?

Is that a thing? That might explain it. Otherwise it seems pretty presumptuous for a show that’s broadcast for all to see, to come on and tell us not to talk about it. I mean it’s definitely an interesting twist but it’s certainly not the biggest surprise in the history of broadcast tv. 

[Wildcard]

I'm in.. Never expected the twist at the end..... And It makes the series a lot more interesting to see how see pretends to move foreward.

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, SoMuchTV said:

Is that a thing? That might explain it. Otherwise it seems pretty presumptuous for a show that’s broadcast for all to see, to come on and tell us not to talk about it. I mean it’s definitely an interesting twist but it’s certainly not the biggest surprise in the history of broadcast tv. 

Alternatively, I considered that they thought having Kathy Bates break the 4th wall at the end might have just been a clever joke to make the pilot stand out. 
But I don't think it added anything to the twist, so maybe it was for the screeners?

The twist made sense of her age (my age, early 70s) for me. Otherwise it would have made more sense to me to have the role be a 50-year old woman, since menopause is when we disappear, while still being mid-career, more like Kathy Bates’ show from 12-13 years ago, Harry's Law.
This show has more of an Ally McBeal feel to it, or William Shatner in The Practice.
But the twist makes it more serious. Hopefully not without bits of comic relief.

Edited September 23 by shapeshifter
apostrophe

[EtheltoTillie]

This started with the same problem I had with Suits and why I could never watch that. You can’t practice law without people knowing your real name and identity.  You have a state license. Even before the twist it was kind of ridiculous. I will stick with this for a while though. 
More ridiculousness:  Oh trial starts tomorrow but we will go to the prison in the morning beforehand. Oh, please.  

[j5cochran]

Just now, EtheltoTillie said:

This started with the same problem I had with Suits and why I could never watch that. You can’t practice law without people knowing your real name and identity.  You have a state license. Even before the twist it was kind of ridiculous. I will stick with this for a while though. 
More ridiculousness:  Oh trial starts tomorrow but we will go to the prison in the morning beforehand. Oh, please.  

I wonder if her law license is in the name of Madeline Matlock - as her maiden name. Or did her grandson say something about choosing the name Matlock for her?

I totally agree about going to the prison on the morning of the trial - absurd!

[EtheltoTillie]

4 minutes ago, j5cochran said:

I wonder if her law license is in the name of Madeline Matlock - as her maiden name. Or did her grandson say something about choosing the name Matlock for her?

I totally agree about going to the prison on the morning of the trial - absurd!

I thought about that. It’s possible.  More to the point is that you cannot get hired at a big law firm without their checking you out more. So even before the twist there was something wrong with this premise. 

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, j5cochran said:

Or did her grandson say something about choosing the name Matlock for her?

Based on the conversation between Matty, her husband and her grandson, they chose Matlock because her dead daughter liked to watch the show when she was younger. They mentioned something about her liking to watch law shows to see what her mother did.

The premise is pretty weak.  For instance, she and husband seem very well off. It's the kind of wealth that I feel would make her well-known in upper society. And this law firm seems to have high powered clients.  I'd imagine someone is going to end up recognizing her unless they recently moved back to the area.

Edited September 23 by Irlandesa

[Nashville]

44 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

It's the kind of wealth that I feel would make her well-known in upper society.

True - if you’re assuming Madeline and/or her husband made their pile in LA (where the show is set).  Based on the accent Bates is employing, though, I’d be willing to guess (a) the Kingstons come from a large southern city like Atlanta, and (b) not a soul in the LA rich clique is likely to be aware of their existence.

[EtheltoTillie]

The show is set in LA?  I thought it was NYC. Either way if she is from another state, she has to get admitted to the bar in the new state.  I believe this is more difficult in California. Other states have more generous reciprocity. I guess she arranged that too in her run up to her grand entrance. 

[Nashville]

13 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

The show is set in LA?  I thought it was NYC. 

So did I, initially - but I went searching to confirm (which is a ROYAL pain in the ass thanks to the earlier series) and ChatGPT says LA.

The accuracy of which, I guess, depends on how much you trust ChatGPT.  😄

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, Nashville said:

So did I, initially - but I went searching to confirm (which is a ROYAL pain in the ass thanks to the earlier series) and ChatGPT says LA.

The accuracy of which, I guess, depends on how much you trust ChatGPT.  😄

I think it’s inaccurate, then.  Thanks to the miracle of DVR, I just rewatched the beginning. They made the streetscape look like NYC.  Then she walks into the office building, which has an address of 450 Fifth Ave.  The last scene has her catching and getting off a marked New York City MTA bus headed for Grand Street with a real NYC bus stop sign. So it has to be NYC. 

Edited September 23 by EtheltoTillie

[AnimeMania]

I guess I was the only one who didn't like the surprise ending of a rich person willing to do "anything", lie, cheat, steal, to "right a wrong" that they only noticed because it personally affected them, and probably was complicit in to obtain their fortune. 

That person, instead of trying to close the loopholes, "the failings of society" that make situations like this possible, corporate greed, doctors writing frivolous prescriptions, lawyers reducing the value of someone's life to a monetary figure, little to no drug rehabilitation, etc., instead focuses all their energy into finding a scapegoat, that magically could have prevented all this from happening. Something that has become all too common in politics today.

[DanaK]

54 minutes ago, AnimeMania said:

I guess I was the only one who didn't like the surprise ending of a rich person willing to do "anything", lie, cheat, steal, to "right a wrong" that they only noticed because it personally affected them, and probably was complicit in to obtain their fortune. 

That person, instead of trying to close the loopholes, "the failings of society" that make situations like this possible, corporate greed, doctors writing frivolous prescriptions, lawyers reducing the value of someone's life to a monetary figure, little to no drug rehabilitation, etc., instead focuses all their energy into finding a scapegoat, that magically could have prevented all this from happening. Something that has become all too common in politics today.

It will be interesting if someone challenges her on that at some point

[Starchild]

3 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

I guess I was the only one who didn't like the surprise ending of a rich person willing to do "anything", lie, cheat, steal, to "right a wrong" that they only noticed because it personally affected them, and probably was complicit in to obtain their fortune. 

That person, instead of trying to close the loopholes, "the failings of society" that make situations like this possible, corporate greed, doctors writing frivolous prescriptions, lawyers reducing the value of someone's life to a monetary figure, little to no drug rehabilitation, etc., instead focuses all their energy into finding a scapegoat, that magically could have prevented all this from happening. Something that has become all too common in politics today.

Let's remember this is CBS lol

[The Crazed Spruce]

9 hours ago, j5cochran said:

I wonder if her law license is in the name of Madeline Matlock - as her maiden name. Or did her grandson say something about choosing the name Matlock for her?

I totally agree about going to the prison on the morning of the trial - absurd!

I admit, I was busy picking up a late supper with the show on in the background, but I think she made a passing reference to her law license being in her "married" name (in other words, her real name), and she prefers to use her "maiden" name, Matlock. (I'll be checking out my recording of the show to be sure.)

I liked the pilot. The premise was interesting, I enjoyed the characters, and, of course, Kathy Bates carried the show.

Then Madeline got off the bus. With that last five minutes, the show went from "a good show" to "absolutely must-see".

(PS: That ring tone? Nice touch.)

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

I guess I was the only one who didn't like the surprise ending of a rich person willing to do "anything", lie, cheat, steal, to "right a wrong" that they only noticed because it personally affected them, and probably was complicit in to obtain their fortune. 

That person, instead of trying to close the loopholes, "the failings of society" that make situations like this possible, corporate greed, doctors writing frivolous prescriptions, lawyers reducing the value of someone's life to a monetary figure, little to no drug rehabilitation, etc., instead focuses all their energy into finding a scapegoat, that magically could have prevented all this from happening. Something that has become all too common in politics today.

I feel the same. I also worked as a pharmacy technician during the time when the Opioid Epidemic started. The villains as it were are way more complex than the Sacklers and their lawyers. They make for great scapegoats, but they were not writing the prescriptions that got people hooked. 

I also am not one for a twist that undermines everything we just saw. Now instead of getting to know the characters, we are watching to see who's the villain. Though the casting makes it pretty inconceivable that anyone but Beau Bridges is the one Maddie is looking for. 

[Ms Lark]

I'm in. I was in 15 min in! With that twist? Oh, yeah. This should be s fun ride.

(Despite all the inaccuracies.)

 

 

[Nashville]

5 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I think it’s inaccurate, then.  Thanks to the miracle of DVR, I just rewatched the beginning. They made the streetscape look like NYC.  Then she walks into the office building, which has an address of 450 Fifth Ave.  The last scene has her catching and getting off a marked New York City MTA bus headed for Grand Street with a real NYC bus stop sign. So it has to be NYC. 

I don’t have a death grip on the LA notion; like I said, NYC was my first thought as well - and I can’t say *I* trust ChatGPT all that much. 😄

NYC or LA, though, is irrelevant to the point I was making; namely, that Maddie and hubby didn’t necessarily make their fortune (and thus would be known for it) in the city where they’re currently living.

Did they ever say what Maddie’s husband does/did for a living?

Edited September 23 by Nashville
Typo

[DanaK]

What’s funny is they let us think this was a Matlock reboot but it’s not and Matty is totally faking the Matlock surname

13 hours ago, Kleav said:

I worry that people will think this is a Matlock reboot and miss out on what promises to be a clever show. 

Word of mouth will hopefully help with that

[EtheltoTillie]

Sorry, but I'm having to chime in with another plot hole:  She stalks the opposing counsel so she knows when he gets coffee and updates his client?  So she knew he would be spouting the figure on the case they were meeting on?  Uh, no. 

I'm still in for now, but I hope they get just a little less preposterous.

[shapeshifter]

Could this be called a Matlock "spoof"?
Or perhaps it's that the main character is spoofing the OG?

 

5 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

I guess I was the only one who didn't like the surprise ending of a rich person willing to do "anything", lie, cheat, steal, to "right a wrong" that they only noticed because it personally affected them, and probably was complicit in to obtain their fortune. 

That person, instead of trying to close the loopholes, "the failings of society" that make situations like this possible, corporate greed, doctors writing frivolous prescriptions, lawyers reducing the value of someone's life to a monetary figure, little to no drug rehabilitation, etc., instead focuses all their energy into finding a scapegoat, that magically could have prevented all this from happening.

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I feel the same. I also worked as a pharmacy technician during the time when the Opioid Epidemic started. The villains as it were are way more complex than the Sacklers and their lawyers. They make for great scapegoats, but they were not writing the prescriptions that got people hooked. 

Since at least 2 of the viewers here saw this flaw in the premise, and since the writers seem capable enough, they could pivot to showing Madeline Matlock realizing she was being just as self-righteous as @AnimeMania describes. 

 

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Now instead of getting to know the characters, we are watching to see who's the villain. Though the casting makes it pretty inconceivable that anyone but Beau Bridges is the one Maddie is looking for. 

Beau Bridges could be a red herring.

[Bookish Jen]

I never watched the original Matlock, but I like Kathy Bates, and I was interested in seeing a TV about an older woman navigating re-entering the workplace that worships youth. And for a bit, I thought this show would just be another law procedural. But when I found out the twist, I decided I'm going to keep on watching.

Sure, there's a lot of plot holes that you can fly a plane through, but I'm still intrigued by the premise, and I'm willing to stick with the show. And I must admit I did laugh out when the young associates were rocking out to the original Matlock theme song. 

And I think this show is based in NYC.

Edited September 24 by Bookish Jen

[Crashcourse]

Interesting plot twist at the end but...I'm out.  I'm not interested in her revenge schemes.  Also, not interested in the other characters.

Edited September 23 by Crashcourse

[mammaM]

Ok, first point, the show is set in NYC. They had views of central park. Not to mention plotholes the size of potholes😂

Which brings me to the second point, I'm not watching this for realism.  I like Kathy Bates' Maddie, I like the young lawyers, I even like her husband and I like the fact I don't have to think too hard. And I'm hoping, as others have pointed out, that since the flaws are so obvious, maybe the writers have a plan, fingers crossed. 

All in all, not a bad pilot

Here's on to episode 2

[possibilities]

I don't even know why the plotholes aren't bothering me. I'm usually a nitpicker. I noticed them, but I was more bothered by the stiff acting. 

Reading reviews and articles about the show, I now know that the showrunner is the same person who did Jane The Virgin. That show had a completely different tone, so I am not sure what to expect. I loved that show for a while but quit it after a specific plot twist that I thought killed its heart. But for a good long while, I thought it was fantastic-- funny as hell, but also had serious heart-affecting drama.

This show seems, at least in the pilot, to be trying to be a lot more subtle, and it's also way less tightly written-- even sloppy. But the premise is great on two different fronts, as far as I'm concerned-- the "women become invisible" thing, and also the "punish the pharmaceutical mafia" thing. 

I agree that no way would they be interviewing witnesses and getting last minute evidence the day of the trial, but at least half the legal shows on tv do that, so I can handwave it as a ridiculous but unavoidable tv norm.

I also think that lax security at the law firm and a lack of serious background check on her is absurd, plus apparently all the associates are incompetent boobs until Maddy shows up, but if the premise is that they are a totally rogue firm that operates unethically and mostly doesn't care, maybe that explains that.

It's definitely NYC. 

An analysis of the real causes of the opioid crisis would be awesome, but even most of the non-fiction media doesn't seem to be capable of that, so I'm not hoping for it from this show. But if they actually give even a half-assed takedown, I'll consider that bold. Network tv is funded by ads, many of which are from big pharma. It seems unlikely they will bite that hand in a truly thorough and insightful way, but I'm still interested in seeing what they do. I'm not going to be upset if they limit it to a partial job.

I don't see how any of her undercover inside knowledge will be actionable, because it's basically vigilante justice. But hopefully they are not setting her up to be a total incompetent, so I guess we'll find out. Maybe she'sn ot hoping for a legal victory, but plans to murder them in their beds or kill their first born children or something. I don't know. The surprise ending was really a surprise to me. I am not used to being that surprised by this kind of show. So I am not guessing what they have planned.

If they do another twist and make Maddy the villian, or even just a failure, that will make me very unhappy.

[fishcakes]

11 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

This started with the same problem I had with Suits and why I could never watch that. You can’t practice law without people knowing your real name and identity.  You have a state license. Even before the twist it was kind of ridiculous. I will stick with this for a while though. 
More ridiculousness:  Oh trial starts tomorrow but we will go to the prison in the morning beforehand. Oh, please.  

They didn't even try to depict the practice of law realistically. Everything about the trial was so absurdly inept; it made me think of those CLE courses on law in the entertainment media, where you just get to watch TV shows or movies and laugh at how wrong the writers got everything. Even shows that get it mostly wrong get a few things right, but this one was got absolutely nothing right.

But I did like the twist and I like Kathy Bates. The rest of the cast all have some charm too, so I'll stick with it for a while.

[EtheltoTillie]

As I said earlier about Suits, this show is really skirting the legal ethics rules.  I know, I know, oxymoron, ha ha.  Well, I am a licensed NYS lawyer, and her conduct violated several rules.  There are rules against dishonesty within practice and outside of practice.  You can't use dishonesty to get things from a witness (pretending to know the prisoner); you can't use dishonesty to get past security; you can't lie to your colleagues about being a broke widow or that your grandson hates you.  Oh, yeah, fake references.  Then she turns out to be super honest to that other witness.  Kind of incompetent.  The twist with the 911 call was great, though.

I will stick with this for a while, but they have a lot to prove.  It may prove to be as silly as So Help Me, Todd, which I bailed on early on. 

Edited September 23 by EtheltoTillie

[shapeshifter]

9 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

As I said earlier about Suits, this show is really skirting the legal ethics rules.  I know, I know, oxymoron, ha ha.  Well, I am a licensed NYS lawyer, and her conduct violated several rules.  There are rules against dishonesty within practice and outside of practice.  You can't use dishonesty to get things from a witness (pretending to know the prisoner); you can't use dishonesty to get past security; you can't lie to your colleagues about being a widow or that your grandson hates you.  Then she turns out to be super honest to that other witness.  Kind of incompetent.  The twist with the 911 call was great, though.

I will stick with this for a while, but they have a lot to prove.  It may prove to be as silly as So Help Me, Todd, which I bailed on early on. 

Can a license to practice law lapse if not renewed? 
Although she told the fiction that she hadn't practiced in 30 years, she mentioned at home that it had been 10 years since she'd practiced. 
I'm asking because I'm wondering if she is not a lawyer, isn't she just a "consultant" without all the rules regarding honesty etc.?
Or is the practice on the hook for making sure all employees follow legal ethics etc.?

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Can a license to practice law lapse if not renewed? 
Although she told the fiction that she hadn't practiced in 30 years, she mentioned at home that it had been 10 years since she'd practiced. 
I'm asking because I'm wondering if she is not a lawyer, isn't she just a "consultant" without all the rules regarding honesty etc.?
Or is the practice on the hook for making sure all employees follow legal ethics etc.?

Okay, it's too early in the morning for this, LOL.

Lapse?  Not that simple.  If you fail to reregister every two years and pay your fee, then they put you on the public naughty list.  If you then fail to catch up you will be stricken from the rolls, I think.  Or you can affirmatively resign or take retired status.  If you want to get back in, you have to abandon retired status.

I don't know what she is playing with.  Is she faking a bar listing as well as her references?  That would require some advanced hacking.

Can she be a consultant/paralegal?  No, not if she is holding herself out  as a lawyer.  The firm is also responsible for her following the rules.  She couldn't get up in open court and argue with the judge, for example. 

I will get off my soapbox now.

2 hours ago, mammaM said:

Ok, first point, the show is set in NYC. They had views of central park. Not to mention plotholes the size of potholes😂

 

l realized after that they also had a passing view of 60 Centre Street, the main Manhattan courthouse, the one they always show on Law and Order.

Edited September 23 by EtheltoTillie

[DearEvette]

8 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

That person, instead of trying to close the loopholes, "the failings of society" that make situations like this possible, corporate greed, doctors writing frivolous prescriptions, lawyers reducing the value of someone's life to a monetary figure, little to no drug rehabilitation, etc., instead focuses all their energy into finding a scapegoat, that magically could have prevented all this from happening.

This is where I am with the twist.

I liked the show itself. The entire cast is ridiculously charismatic and the dialogue is unexpectedly snappy for a CBS show.  It felt like a CBS/ABC Frankenchild of a show.  It will be a nice hour of tv to enjoy and I plan to continue (even is the twist hadn't happened).

Then comes the twist.  Yeah, it gives another layer to the show and makes it more than  just being a weekly procedural but i immediately thought that Maddie, for all her cunning, has to know that a single law firm could not have stemmed the tide on Big Pharma and the Opiod epidemic?  Right?  I mean, she has to know this?

Also, how is this sustainable? Do we never get resolution and the show continues on with every last scene showing her gazing at her Conspiracy board? Or, Ok, she finds her big villain in the firm?  Then what?  Are they gone? Does she go scorched earth to take them down? Does the show then just carry on in regular case of the week mode without the thing hanging in the background?

And then there is the whole credentials part. I know tv depicting almost every profession do it laughably wrong.  But there was some in-universe things that still have to be plausbily logical. How do you get hired a law firm and the only due diligence they show on giving her a background check is a single references phone call? What about college transcripts? Written references? Industry on HBO did the faked credentials sword of Damacles very well.

I get that they are trying to do something different and this feels a little wobbly, imo.  But I plan to keep watching and hope I am proved wrong.