S01.E01: Pilot

[12catcrazy]

I decided to watch this show because of Kathy Bates and am now totally sucked in because of the ending.   In a way, she is like a Superhero except she doesn't need to wear glasses like Clark Kent or Diana Prince - her superpower is being "invisible".    And as a woman in her age group I get it and I'm rooting for her 100 percent.       

Some of the plot devices are hard to swallow, but I can imagine her being very wealthy and nobody knowing about it.  There are so many wealthy people in the Tri-State New York metro area that unless you are part of the Hamptons social scene and/or famous, you don't have to stand out and people don't know who you are, so that part of it is actually plausible.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

21 hours ago, Bastet said:

Before we wind up with a mod note in only our first episode thread, let's redirect ourselves -- discussion of other "old people" shows enjoyed should move to this forum's small talk thread.

My bad! I didn't mean to derail the conversation!

Anyway, I was able to watch this for free last night even though I cancelled the service, as the "official" date of the premiere isn't until October 8 or something.

Like everyone here, I watched this for Kathy Bates. Jason Ritter was a nice surprise (and Lord how he's a ringer for his dad, who I loved and still miss!). I thought she was clever and cunning. I couldn't stand anyone else-not the soon-to-be-ex-daughter-in-law, or the new female associate. Male associate was okay.

It's just beyond RIDONKULOUS the hoops and interviews that should have been done BEFORE TRIAL. But @EtheltoTillie has already listed everything that was wrong and giving me shades of Suits. But I love Kathy. So I'll stick around for awhile.

But unlike most, I HATED that twist and thought it was cheap and  a cheat. But I loved young associate playing the original show on his phone and hearing and seeing the opening credits! 

[EtheltoTillie]

I don't see the big resemblance between Jason Ritter and John Ritter.  They don't look alike at all to me! 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I don't see the big resemblance between Jason Ritter and John Ritter.  They don't look alike at all to me! 

They're not identical, but I can never not see the resemblance.
I've painted portraits for 60 years, so I guess it's like when you lawyers watch shows like this.

 

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

But unlike most, I HATED that twist and thought it was cheap and  a cheat.

My internal jury is still out on the twist. 
I tuned in for the show without the twist, so it depends upon how it's handled.

Edited September 27 by shapeshifter
For 60 years, not 50. I really am that old

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I don't see the big resemblance between Jason Ritter and John Ritter.  They don't look alike at all to me!

This was the first thing I'd seen him in, and there was one point about halfway through the episode where the resemblance really stood out to me, but it was only in that one shot I thought he looked a lot like his dad.  Otherwise, I see the resemblance, but don't think it's a noteworthy one for a father and son.

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

But I loved young associate playing the original show on his phone

I didn't care for the original series, so that didn't do anything for me on the nostalgia level, but I enjoyed it among all the references to old shows.  That's the one thing I'd re-watch the episode for, to catch all the times the youngsters referenced the wrong character/show.  I like that he looked it up, and it was really cute for him to play "her" theme song to celebrate her victory.

[EtheltoTillie]

24 minutes ago, Bastet said:

This was the first thing I'd seen him in, and there was one point about halfway through the episode where the resemblance really stood out to me, but it was only in that one shot I thought he looked a lot like his dad.  Otherwise, I see the resemblance, but don't think it's a noteworthy one for a father and son.

I didn't care for the original series, so that didn't do anything for me on the nostalgia level, but I enjoyed it among all the references to old shows.  That's the one thing I'd re-watch the episode for, to catch all the times the youngsters referenced the wrong character/show.  I like that he looked it up, and it was really cute for him to play "her" theme song to celebrate her victory.

I think there was a mention of Jessica Fletcher--that was a funny one. 

They've been playing a lugubrious version of the original Matlock theme song in the background. 

[preeya]

Question for the audience:

I never watched the original Matlock. I'd like to know if this is a re-make (female style) or if it is a new show with a female lead.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, preeya said:

Question for the audience:

I never watched the original Matlock. I'd like to know if this is a re-make (female style) or if it is a new show with a female lead.

Not at all a remake.   New show that just happens to have the same name. 

[shapeshifter]

4 minutes ago, preeya said:

Question for the audience:

I never watched the original Matlock. I'd like to know if this is a re-make (female style) or if it is a new show with a female lead.

2 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Not at all a remake.   New show that just happens to have the same name. 

Yes, with a few jokes about the original Matlock being for old people. 
And the main character is using the name of Matlock as a secret identity.

But I'm still not sure: 
Is "Matlock" a maiden name of Maddie's? 
Or did she just make it up for her secret identity? 

[AZChristian]

54 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

But I'm still not sure: 
Is "Matlock" a maiden name of Maddie's? 
Or did she just make it up for her secret identity? 

In the final minutes of the premiere episode, I think they mentioned that Madeline Matlock and her daughter were fans of the Andy Griffith series, and she adopted the last name Matlock in tribute to his character.

[DanaK]

8 hours ago, AZChristian said:

In the final minutes of the premiere episode, I think they mentioned that Madeline Matlock and her daughter were fans of the Andy Griffith series, and she adopted the last name Matlock in tribute to his character.

Yes, exactly. So they fake promoted it like it was a remake (or made us think it was) and then we get the twist at the end of the pilot. So now it’s a legal show/thriller to unearth wrongdoers that has homages to Matlock but isn’t a remake but slyly references the show so Matty can act unassuming

[shapeshifter]

57 minutes ago, DanaK said:

Yes, exactly. So they fake promoted it like it was a remake (or made us think it was) and then we get the twist at the end of the pilot. So now it’s a legal show/thriller to unearth wrongdoers that has homages to Matlock but isn’t a remake but slyly references the show so Matty can act unassuming

In Real Life someone from that law firm would be doing an Ancestry search on the name Matlock just because.

[Thomas Crown]

I really enjoyed the pilot and loved the twist at the end. I hope the show has the courage  to follow through on the premise that one of the main characters at the law firm was covering up evidence to the opioid crisis.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

I also have to suspend my belief at the notion that Mattie is too old as the firm I work at has several, more than a third of attorneys who are over 60 and still litigating and actively involved in cases.

[annzeepark914]

I haven't had a show since Downtown Abby ended but Kathy Bates is a favorite of mine so I tuned in. I'm not a lawyer, but I sure noticed some oddities (mentioned already). I'll watch again on 10/17.  

[Irlandesa]

52 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I also have to suspend my belief at the notion that Mattie is too old as the firm I work at has several, more than a third of attorneys who are over 60 and still litigating and actively involved in cases.

The issue isn't her age.  It's that she is trying to get newly hired by the firm at that age after not having practiced for 30 years.

 

[JAYJAY1979]

I assumed she was going to be playing another variation of her lawyer character from Harry's Law... but I see that isn't the case.

You gotta put a bit of soap opera into your procedurals.. and I'm glad  CBS (the former place for prime time soaps) is getting that message more and more as the years go by.

[shapeshifter]

14 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I also have to suspend my belief at the notion that Mattie is too old as the firm I work at has several, more than a third of attorneys who are over 60 and still litigating and actively involved in cases.

Kathy Bates’ face looks a youthful 60, but IRL she’s 76, and she seemed to me to be acting her age here, but, on the 3rd hand, her character is acting “older,” so now I’m confused:
How old is her *real* character supposed to be?

 

13 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

The issue isn't her age.  It's that she is trying to get newly hired by the firm at that age after not having practiced for 30 years.

Yes, that’s the real leap. 
Typically after a work hiatus of more than a few years, getting hired requires something like a really impressive résumé or a recently acquired degree with internships, or maybe knowing the boss.

I hope the writers can pull off this farcical plot.

 

[Chaos Theory]

There is a certain amount of suspension of disbelief needed for the premise to stick.  One of the weird things I have noticed and hate is that people’s ability to handwave “details to move plot forward” has almost completely vanished.    Not sure if it has always been the case but I blame reality tv.     I think it is just a small detail of old lady wants back into workforce with semi real resume.   

20 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

The issue isn't her age.  It's that she is trying to get newly hired by the firm at that age after not having practiced for 30 years.

 

I think that is one of the things the show did fairly well. Kathy Bates didnt just expect a job she bartered for it.   “Let me work on case.   If I am useful then hire me.”  If was good tv logic.    Plus I like the whole “no one sees old women coming” aspect of the premise.   

The mystery of which lawyer buried information is something that can only  really last a season before it needs to pivot in some way but it is a good season long mystery and Kathy Bates’s character true identity maybe a couple seasons but the show has promise.

Edited September 30 by Chaos Theory

[EtheltoTillie]

20 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I also have to suspend my belief at the notion that Mattie is too old as the firm I work at has several, more than a third of attorneys who are over 60 and still litigating and actively involved in cases.

Same, I'm about to turn 70, and many of my colleagues of the same age and older are still practicing. 

[Nashville]

7 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Same, I'm about to turn 70, and many of my colleagues of the same age and older are still practicing. 

Echo; I retired July 27, and started my new job July 28.  😉

[Passing Strange]

I would have watched this without the twist; now I'm going to watch in spite of it. I thought it was going to be an "Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance" thing and I was here for it. But, no, here's a second woman-led lawyer show that someone thought needed a twist, so they reworked the one from Elsbeth. At least they didn't make Matty quirky.

The grandson isn't a hacker. He's a teen. Creating a LinkedIn profile and routing a call require no more skill than navigating a forum like this one. I hope they don't go the route of having him there to help out the technologically incompetent old people. 

Also, I love it when people here call out errors. I don't mind handwaving things, but I want to know when a show is trying to spoon-feed me pablum.

 

[possibilities]

I'm kind of hoping that it will be both-- a show about how age conquers youth, and also a takedown of corruption that has nothing to do with age. I really like the way she uses her "invisibility" to get info. 

I hadn't taken the twist to be part of a gender trope. Tracker, the ultimate bland but hunky white guy procedural, has a season arc  related to the protagonist's family based angst, as well-- and that arc is way less interesting or heroic than what either Elsbeth or this show is doing.

I think the networks are trying to get people to tune in week after week to find out the answer to the long mystery while also being satisfied on a weekly basis to get resolution to the case of the week.

[Chaos Theory]

Mattie might not be too old if she was a partner.  Then again not the law field but my brother made partner in his company and has to retire at 65.     There us a bunch of reasons for it one being turnover in partners means that the company will have new ideas instead of being stuck with old ones.    That being said Mattie isn’t going for a partnership.  She is applying for what is basically entry level and that is definitely something you would side eye at least a little.

[fastiller]

Calling it now: one of the two associates (the ones who were w/ Maddie visit the prison and the 'old ho') will come on-side with her in her take down of the partner.  One of them will have lost a loved one to opioids and will want to assist her.  I haven't decided whether this person will also learn of Maddie's real situation.

[Passing Strange]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

I hadn't taken the twist to be part of a gender trope.

I agree that it's not a stereotype. To me, it felt more like a lack of faith that either of these characters could carry off a show on her own, so they had to add a punch. 

[Bastet]

On 9/27/2024 at 12:00 PM, Bastet said:

That's the one thing I'd re-watch the episode for, to catch all the times the youngsters referenced the wrong character/show. 

Quoting myself to say I watched again last night when I couldn't sleep, and Sarah calls her Perry Mason, MacGyver, and Angela Lansbury.

I liked it more on second watch, because I wasn't as distracted by all the "That's now it works, that's not how any of this works" issues, already knowing what they are and when they're coming.  (I still loathe the use of flashbacks during the twist reveal, like we are so stupid we couldn't possibly remember what she'd said.) 

I love the scene between Mattie and Olympia when Olympia tells her she gave the former sex worker a way out because she reminds Mattie of herself and says the people who remind Mattie of herself have generations of advantage over the people who remind Olympia of herself.  "Do you know who I identify with?  Raymond and his family, who you just screwed over."

Mattie better not keep carrying her wedding ring in her purse; someone's going to go looking for a butterscotch candy and instead find that giant rock this supposedly broke woman has.

[MMEButterfly]

I figure this is CBS, not Masterpiece Mystery. I'm happy with watching Kathy Bates and I'm glad it's not a reboot of the Harry's Law series. The old people can fit in today trope (not a city mouse/country mouse story) isn't enough, really, for a series. The theme of traveling under the radar to right a wrong from a power person is always a good story for me.  A kind of a not-really-a-David vs. Goliath story sounds good to me. 

[Nashville]

22 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Mattie might not be too old if she was a partner.  Then again not the law field but my brother made partner in his company and has to retire at 65.     There us a bunch of reasons for it one being turnover in partners means that the company will have new ideas instead of being stuck with old ones.    That being said Mattie isn’t going for a partnership.  She is applying for what is basically entry level and that is definitely something you would side eye at least a little.

But these days, is it really?  In this day and time the re-entry of seniors into the workforce is no longer considered so much as uncommon, as increases in both inflation and life expectancies leave many elder Americans in the unenviable position of outliving their retirement savings.  Consider the cover story Maddie has presented to the firm’s staff (across multiple reveals):

1. Age-wise, Maddie is somewhere in her mid-70s; for argument’s sake, let’s assume the character is approximately the same age as Kathy Bates IRL - 76.
2. Maddie initially left the workforce at some point in 1991 - 32 years ago.
3. Maddie likely did not leave work on account of marriage (in the Old Ho’s apartment Maddie specifically states her clitoris-unaware husband and she were married 37 years previous, or circa 1987) nor raising a family (she would‘ve been somewhere around 44 when she left out) - so her remaining option was most likely a relatively early retirement, with her and her husband primarily living off his salary and/or their retirement savings.
4. In the past 32 years, though, inflation has increased the cost of living somewhere in the neighborhood of 120% - which means the lifespan of any retirement savings has effectively been cut by at least half.
5. But wait; Maddie also tells the Old Ho* (and by extension the two associates in the room) her husband was an inveterate gambler - the simple mention of which necessarily implies he blew through all his money/savings, and possibly (probably?) hers as well.

Add all that to Maddie’s homespun homilies about swiping ketchup packets and such, and the firm’s staff is presented with an image and backstory not uncommon in our times; that of a senior on her own and staring at destitution in her later years, and looking for some position - ANY position - to support herself in later years which pays better than Wal-Mart greeter.

Now, is Maddie’s story true?  Oh hell no - but is it plausible?  Oh hell yes - from the standpoint of the legal firm to which she’s spinning this tale, at least.

So - given Maddie has already laid an extremely plausible background at the firm’s feet, how likely is some HR grunt going to be inclined to dig for an alternate explanation?

 

 * “Old Ho” - my god, but I love that.

[The Crazed Spruce]

On 10/3/2024 at 3:45 PM, fastiller said:

Calling it now: one of the two associates (the ones who were w/ Maddie visit the prison and the 'old ho') will come on-side with her in her take down of the partner.  One of them will have lost a loved one to opioids and will want to assist her.  I haven't decided whether this person will also learn of Maddie's real situation.

I'll go you one better. I figure the associates will figure it out for themselves. They'll each find a piece of the puzzle, compare notes, and put more of the picture together. They'll dig a little bit to get more details, then try to give their findings to the senior partner, but they'll get shut down or ignored. Only then will they confront Maddie, and get the full story. The mid-season cliffhanger will hinge on whether or not they're on Maddie's side in the end. (Of course they will be, but still.... cliffhanger.)

Edited October 5 by The Crazed Spruce

[peachmangosteen]

On 9/23/2024 at 12:26 PM, possibilities said:

Reading reviews and articles about the show, I now know that the showrunner is the same person who did Jane The Virgin. 

Well, that worries me. Jane the Virgin started out so well but became unwatchable pretty quickly imo.

On 10/3/2024 at 11:47 AM, possibilities said:

I'm kind of hoping that it will be both-- a show about how age conquers youth, and also a takedown of corruption that has nothing to do with age.

It pretty clearly is both.

I wasn't going to watch this just because it didn't interest me, I never watched the original, and I am not usually into CBS shows but I saw an ad yesterday that said it was 100% on Rotten Tomatoes so I figured I'd at least check it out. It was hands down my favorite of the pilots I've watched this season. I liked it a lot.

[chessiegal]

6 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I never watched the original,

Other than the title character name, it's nothing like the original.

[schnauzergirl]

For those who missed the Pilot or who want to see it again, CBS is showing it on October 8 and October 10 at 9:00 p.m.  

[tinkerbell]

On 9/27/2024 at 12:37 PM, EtheltoTillie said:

I don't see the big resemblance between Jason Ritter and John Ritter.  They don't look alike at all to me! 

For me, the resemblance is in facial expressions.  A goofy half smile, and he is Jack Tripper.

[Boofish]

My understanding is that one of them suppressed evidence 10 years ago. That is the reason she wants them in jail.

Yeah, if I want reality, I just watch the evening news. Plot holes just tickle me and make me feel clever for spotting them; they have never actually stopped my enjoyment. I turn on the television to escape reality, not be reminded of it.

[Irlandesa]

12 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

Well, that worries me. Jane the Virgin started out so well but became unwatchable pretty quickly imo.

The good news is that even with an ongoing story, this is still crafted like a procedural.  Jane was pure soap and I've noticed that recent shows that were pure soap (as opposed to soapy medical/legal/rescue) shows burned through twists and turns too fast. 

But I think procedural-structured shows are usually easier for showrunners to maintain. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 9/22/2024 at 11:17 PM, 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.  

Some of the ridiculousness is just inherent in TV/movie legal drama. At least in this case, they said people had been working on it for at least 6 months. Usually, they act as though the case goes to trial like the same week it was filed or the suspect was arrested. Although one has to wonder: what exactly were they doing during that six months? In a real life version of the case, there would have been extensive effort on the serial killers various murders, the pressure to close the case, whatever led the cops to Client, the many many ways that it should have been clear to the cops that Client likely did not commit these multiple murders/rapes without leaving fingerprints, DNA at any of the scenes and how no witnesses tied him to any of the crimes but one, etc. 

I think we have to take it for granted that Matty was able to use her money to create an entirely fake background for herself as "Matty" good enough to stand up to some casual level of scrutiny. Suits had a similar work around that they got a hacker to create a fake Mike Ross profile indicating that he did well at Harvard. That premise was undermined by its own weight by another conceit: that the firm exclusively hired Harvard grads. There is no way that Mike could fake being a Harvard Law grad in the midst of a bunch of Harvard Law grad. He would not be able to get through not actually knowing the people and places that he would have had to spending three years in Boston. Given that it has a number of new Harvard grads each year, it would be impossible for no one to not notice that they had no mutual friends in common, etc.

Anyway, I digress. 

Some of my thoughts about the pilot:

1. It's hard for me to suspend disbelief that big important lawyer from another firm would have regular conversations with his clients in a public place to the point that Matty would know that she could hang around him and benefit. Yes, there's probably not a large likelihood of someone stalking him, but just common sense and legal ethics say don't put that out there. In particular, it seems really dumb to have the conversation about his client's top price out loud at all moments before the negotiation was supposed to be happening. 

2. The COW Client was exonerated for a series of rape/murders he did not commit and spent 26 years in jail. Under these circumstances, a $20 million verdict seems like it is pretty mid. A couple recent cases from Google include someone getting $50 million for 10 years in prison, another getting $16m for 25, and two brothers sharing $75 million for 31 years and a murder.  

3. Related to 2, the defense would never offer just $200k-ish to settle the case no matter how confident they were in potentially winning. They'd have to realize the risk of going to trial would be a multi-million dollar verdict. I'm not sure what their defense was supposed to be. "Hey, we got it wrong in this case but we're not corrupt?" How does it change that in the best case they made an innocent mistake that cost this guy 26 years?

4. The writers had to have Client guilty of serial rape/murder because without it they couldn't have the complete exoneration/expose that someone buried the evidence that there was a serial killer on the loose still. But the fact that the original killer was a serial undermines the premise further. One can believe that hey, Client was seen in the vicinity of one of the rape/murders and that together with his confession (plus a smidgen of racism, defense incompetence, etc) was enough to win a conviction on that crime. But what about however many other rapes/murders that the serial killer was responsible for? Surely he would have been able to establish an alibi for at least some of those? 

5. The thing that apparently made the defense confident was that they planted a story in the paper that "Police corruption wasn't as bad as it had been reported." This is a dumb thing to hang one's hat on for a number of reasons. First, newspaper readership sadly is less central today than ever before. Second. the jury selection process would probably result in screening out a lot of the people who happened to see the article and might let it influence their opinion. Third, even the people who read the article believed the article, that doesn't mean that they will conclude that Client's case wasn't an example of police misconduct no matter how widespread or limited it was. Fourth, even assuming that there was one or more people who made it to the jury and got convinced by the article that this was an honest mistake by the cops and not police misconduct that doesn't mean that those people will continue to hold that view in the face of opposition from other jury members, the evidence presented in the case, etc. It seems more likely that the best they could hope for is a hung jury, which would just cause the case to be retried.

6. Unlike TV and movie lawyers, real lawyers tend to specialize in one or two areas of expertise. It would make no sense for Client to approach big firm for some pro bono basis when there are numerous attorneys who specialize in suing over reversed convictions.

7. I hate that Client was basically a non-entity in his own story and that they felt the need to elevate Client's Daughter as a more important character than the guy who was wrongly accused and spent 26 years in prison. There is no in-universe way to explain not putting Client himself on the stand. The show tried to obscure it by saying that if the Client testified that his previous convictions would come in. I don't see how they wouldn't be coming in if he refused to testify anyway. In defending themselves, the cops would certainly say that they looked up Client's criminal record as part of their investigation and the effect it had on their belief on his guilt. Even assuming for argument's sake that the defense was worried about his previous criminal record coming in and saw not having him testify as the only way to prevent that, so what? The case is about the damages HE suffered, not primarily his daughter. The only way to adequately convey his damages is to have him testify as to how much it sucked to be accused of crimes he did not commit. It would be legal malpractice to try the case without putting him on the stand. It seemed a really artificial thing that Our Heroes were trying to get the daughter's approval about stuff both in and out of the courtroom when Client is the actual Client. 

8. I know it's what the show was going for, but the officer defendant couldn't have come off as more of a dislikeable arrogant prick if he tried. One would think that he would at least attempt to conceal it. And when confronted with the 911 call, he would have been smart enough to not just give up the game right away.

9. I have mixed feelings toward the pilot casting Nicole de Boer (Ezri Dax on DS9 and Sarah on The Dead Zone) as the prostitute-turned-suburban housewife. I'm glad that the actress is getting work, but I wish it was more. Also, to take a dip in the shallow pool. she still looks fine.

10. Another TV convention: the lead character gets to step up and deliver the key smackdowns on the deserving. No way Matty would be able to stand up in court where Olympia is the lead and address defense counsel. In general, lawyers are supposed to only address the court and not each other. And Olympia as lead counsel would likely do all the speaking to the court.

Thoughts about the premise and twist:

I have to admit that I'm intrigued enough by it to want to tune in and see where they are going. It reminded me a little of a short-lived 90s show called Profit in which a person whose childhood life was turned upside down by a corporation took on a fake name and sought to mess with the lives of the various corporate execs.

But the thing about that show was that Profit was a psychopath and you can see him going to baroque schemes to get his revenge. Why wouldn't Matty be smarter/more realistic/less crazy about seeking her evidence? Surely there has to be a better route available to someone with her smarts and wealth than to pretend to be dumb ol' Matty, 30 years out of lawyering and hope to work her way into a position of trust to get at files from decades (?) ago about the opoid crisis and the firm's dealings with it. Particularly since anything she finds through her deception would probably be tainted goods. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

 

On 9/28/2024 at 12:27 PM, preeya said:

Question for the audience:

I never watched the original Matlock. I'd like to know if this is a re-make (female style) or if it is a new show with a female lead.

The closest I have come to watching OG Matlock is various references to the show in The Simpsons.

But from the pilot, it's clear that Matlock 2024 is in a universe where the Matlock TV series that we know aired, presumably much as it did in our universe. Kathy Bates' character decided to adopt the persona of "Matlock, just like the TV show" as part of her investigation into how the firm she's weaseled her way into kicked off the opioid crisis and also as a partial tribute to her daughter, who used to watch Matlock and who was apparently a victim of the crisis.

Kathy Bates has little to nothing in common with OG Matlock AFAIK other than they are both senior citizens with Southern roots. 

If there are any here who watched OG Matlock, I'm curious if there are deeper cuts or connections that I am missing. 

[shapeshifter]

36 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Kathy Bates has little to nothing in common with OG Matlock AFAIK other than they are both senior citizens with Southern roots. 
If there are any here who watched OG Matlock, I'm curious if there are deeper cuts or connections that I am missing. 

In my own post-retirement years, I have caught many Matlock episodes weekdays at 10 a.m.
So far the biggest correlation between the 2 characters I see is that both project a personna of kindly senior citizen that hides a genius for sussing out key information necessary to solve a case, as well as a skill for presenting that information in a timely, effective manner —often thought up on-the-fly — that takes the opposition by surprise. 

Sometimes OG Matlock would lose his temper with a judge and get penalized. 
But I haven't watched the OG series in its entirety or in order, so I'm not sure if Hot-headed Matlock was an aberration or a known personality trait lurking beneath the surface, but I think it was the latter. 

[EtheltoTillie]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

 

The closest I have come to watching OG Matlock is various references to the show in The Simpsons.

But from the pilot, it's clear that Matlock 2024 is in a universe where the Matlock TV series that we know aired, presumably much as it did in our universe. Kathy Bates' character decided to adopt the persona of "Matlock, just like the TV show" as part of her investigation into how the firm she's weaseled her way into kicked off the opioid crisis and also as a partial tribute to her daughter, who used to watch Matlock and who was apparently a victim of the crisis.

Kathy Bates has little to nothing in common with OG Matlock AFAIK other than they are both senior citizens with Southern roots. 

If there are any here who watched OG Matlock, I'm curious if there are deeper cuts or connections that I am missing. 

OG Matlock went to Harvard Law and was a notorious cheapskate. I don’t think these match up. 

[chessiegal]

IMO, the only thing this show and the original Matlock have in common is that the title characters are both lawyers and have the same last name. MeTV airs the original weekdays at 10 am ET for those who have never seen it and are curious enough to take a look.

Edited October 6 by chessiegal

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

OG Matlock went to Harvard Law and was a notorious cheapskate. I don’t think these match up. 

I'm not so sure they don't match…in a way.
Both versions of the Matlock character have wealth.
OG Matlock didn't want to spend money because of habits from growing up poor.
New Matlock pretends to not have money to spend but also has it. 

I'm not sure if I will stick with this show, but it could be fun if they continue to plant slightly mismatched traits like this for us to compare and contrast.

Edited October 6 by shapeshifter

[EtheltoTillie]

That's a reach, @shapeshifter, lol.

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 hours ago, chessiegal said:

IMO, the only thing this show and the original Matlock have in common is that the title characters are both lawyers and have the same last name. MeTV airs the original weekdays at 10 am ET for those who have never seen it and are curious enough to take a look.

This is one of the reasons why I miss TWoP. And one of its “dos” about reading the previous 5 pages or 15 comments. @chessiegal’s post above is the third clarifying this show is nothing like the original and not a reboot. That both shows only share the name. I mentioned it in my first, which deviated off topic into other shows.

Topic?

It’s also ridiculous that Maddy/Mattie? was hired without having going through HR and you know, completing all those pesky forms required by the IRS.

[possibilities]

I have never seen any tv show put a new hire though the paperwork on screen.

[Bastet]

3 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Maddy/Mattie?

Matty (that's how press releases from the studio and network spell it).

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Matty (that's how press releases from the studio and network spell it).

Thanks. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

Matty (that's how press releases from the studio and network spell it).

Not that it matters, but does Matty mean her first name is Matilda and not Madeline? I thought it was Madeline.
Or is the Matty just short for Matlock. 
Maybe in her real life she is Maddy? 

[Bastet]

12 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Or is the Matty just short for Matlock. 

Yes.

Quote

Maybe in her real life she is Maddy? 

Her husband called her Madeline, but lots of people alternate between the full name and a nickname, so she probably goes by both. 

Edited October 6 by Bastet

[EtheltoTillie]

On 10/5/2024 at 12:49 PM, schnauzergirl said:

For those who missed the Pilot or who want to see it again, CBS is showing it on October 8 and October 10 at 9:00 p.m.  

sheesh they are really going all out to repeat this pilot and depriving us of a second episode. What an annoying strategy. I think they repeated it twice already. 

Edited October 9 by EtheltoTillie