SlovakPrincess October 2, 2014 Share October 2, 2014 Oh, man. I watched this for Viola Davis, and I really, really wanted to like it. But it was ludicrous. And it seemed cobbled together from bits of Damages, Legally Blonde and The Practice ... only even less realistic! 1 Link to comment
eyetotelescope October 2, 2014 Share October 2, 2014 Ugh, it was like a crappy version of Damages set in law school. Excellent point. Damages had plenty of unrealistic law elements as well, but at least in season one, was a million times better than this show. Sigh - I really miss Damages. As a lawyer, I struggled with most of the same things that other lawyers/law students/people in the legal field here have already mentioned, even though I usually don't judge too harshly since "real law" is nowhere entertaining enough for TV and since I've loved other legal shows before (e.g. Damages, The Good Wife). But beyond the ridiculous depiction of law and law school, I really struggled with how boilerplate these characters feel, and how predictable the storyline has been so far. That said, I'll give it a few more episodes and see if it gets any better. Annalise is very smart in that she has students do the grunt work for free and then whatever they come up with, she has plausible deniability because they are students and not lawyers. I don't know how it works in the States, but in Canada, Annalise, as the supervising lawyer, would be ultimately responsible for whatever the law students are doing while in her employment, since they're not lawyers yet, so unless the rule is vastly different in the States, I'm not sure how this would give her plausible deniability. As for the lawyers picking it apart, how many would watch a TV show that was accurate about it really works in trials? Probably not many. I've been on many juries and even a grand jury. It is not riveting TV. Lawyers stumbling over questions. Juries in and out of the courtroom a couple times a day as the lawyers argue over admissibility questions. In fact, the last couple of juries I have been on the lawyers first statements to us are always, "This will not happen like it does on TV". I agree that a fully accurate depiction of the law wouldn't make for entertaining TV, but the show should be somewhat grounded in reality if it's trying to sell itself as a serious show (rather than a satirical comedy). For example, why in the world would 100 students be sitting in the room with Annalise and her team as they meet with their client? The confidentiality issues arising from such a scenario would make this completely unreasonable, not to mention just plain ridiculous from a practical standpoint. 2 Link to comment
mikem October 2, 2014 Share October 2, 2014 (edited) One of the weird things is that Wes said the detective boyfriend lied, but Annelise was counting on his NOT lying and saying that he was aware of doctored footage. And the "I was with a friend" wasn't lying, either. I agree that the rationale for having it be "attempted murder" rather than actual murder isn't clear, from a storytelling point of view. What was the reason to keep the attempt unsuccessful? So the audience wouldn't be as upset that the mistress and the wife got away with it? Edited October 2, 2014 by mikem Link to comment
eyetotelescope October 2, 2014 Share October 2, 2014 (edited) How to Get Away with Murder is gripping though I wonder if it's too morally dark for TV. People covering up murders, cheating on each other, banging the students, getting murderers off, it's a lot. Do you mean network TV? Because cable TV is pretty much just what you described! I didn't think he was lying either. He just seemed pissed that she put him in that position. He seemed surprised too. I don't think he would have been if she had told him what she wanted him to say. And why would he lie like that about something that will cause problems for him at work (no other cops will be happy he admited evidence has been doctored). It can't be fear she's expose the affair since that will make her look worse than him. He didn't seem to be married. Actually, I think Annalise asked him, when he was on the witness stand, whether he was home taking care of his wife, who had recently been diagnosed with cancer. Second, I'm not a lawyer, but I am a paralegal, and I have worked in many firms over the years, and some of the nonsense...man, I think I lost my eyeballs they rolled so hard. I minored in Criminal Justice in college, and maybe I'm just stupid, but I thought that those that go on to law school/are pre-law, would also take criminal justice classes in undergraduate, where they fucking teach you about mens rhea and actus rhea. It's one of the first things taught in the Introduction to Criminal Justice 101. Most people I went to law school with didn't take criminal justice before arriving in law school - why would they? That said, I knew about actus reus and mens rea from my high school days, so it does strike me as a bit odd that he had no idea what mens rea was, but not odd enough to be unrealistic. Edited October 2, 2014 by eyetotelescope Link to comment
Chicago Redshirt October 2, 2014 Share October 2, 2014 I don't know how it works in the States, but in Canada, Annalise, as the supervising lawyer, would be ultimately responsible for whatever the law students are doing while in her employment, since they're not lawyers yet, so unless the rule is vastly different in the States, I'm not sure how this would give her plausible deniability. Taking it to the Law School thread Link to comment
Downtown Harmony October 2, 2014 Share October 2, 2014 This episode is amazing so addictive and intense. I can't wait to find out how the husband is killed. Did you guys missed the episode catch it here: wp.me/p4zlOU-bm Link to comment
imjagain October 5, 2014 Share October 5, 2014 During the news broadcast at the end did the reporter say that the girl was found in the water tank, or was that the reveal that the husband may have been involved when he said water tank? Wasn't watching that carefully. KaveDweller- was it Killing Mr. Griffin by Lois Duncan? No, she didn't. Good catch. Link to comment
fliptopbox October 19, 2014 Share October 19, 2014 I thought I totally had it figured out til the last scene. Then I was like 'DAMMIT!' cos I saw who the law students' victim was. Now my new theory is Prof Viola hired them (or coerced, whatever) them to kill her husband. Probably cos he was cheating with the girl who went missing. Not sure how she bit it yet....but I have only started this show today. But I am pretty sure the Keatings have something to do with both disappearances. Anyone can feel free to let me know if I am on the right track. ;) Link to comment
darkestboy October 24, 2014 Share October 24, 2014 I enjoyed the episode. It did sometimes a little too fast and a lot of tropes from a Shonda Rhimes show were definitely there but yeah, the central mystery is interesting enough.Annalise intrigues and I do see an Emmy in Viola Davis future for the show.Connor was the more interesting out of the students but I did like Michaels and Wes.Laurel and Asher seemed like blank canvases for now.Will definitely keep watching this for now, 7/10. Link to comment
Recommended Posts