Ohmo May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 If AP were that big a nightmare she would have been fired. Agreed. I don't believe the InTouch article for that reason. I know the only other examples I can think of are Shonda Rhimes shows, but Columbus Short andI Isiah Washington were both out after having issues. Especially based on that one quote by JM that in her mind, the show is mainly about one character. Using that argument (that I don't agree with), the show didn't "need" Kalinda if the show was mainly about Alicia. If Archie were the problem, there would be no reason to keep Kalinda onscreen if the plan was going to be to minimize the character. Archie would essentially be paid to be a problem and do very little for years. Even within the context of The Good Wife, I don't think either Archie or Kalinda would have enough standing that CBS would have agreed to that. Stuff happens on shows, and I'm not talking about feuds. It was just reported a few weeks ago that Peter MacNichol is not returning to CSI: Cyber. The rumor is that's to make room for Ted Danson's CSI character. I don't know a lot about the TV industry, but there always seens to be an ability to make a change if a change is needed, so I can't imagine that CBS would have just gone along and paid Archie for years if she was indeed the issue. 1 Link to comment
Morbs May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 I think Alan Cumming is actually our best shot at getting some answers. Like he'll get drunk and tweet or just go off during an interview after he's done with the show. 3 Link to comment
Kromm May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 Remember a few pages back when I suggested that either the Kings, Marguiles, and/or her agency, had a lot of fingers in a lot of pies and were calling in favors with journalists to first (at that time) discredit the whole idea that there WAS a conflict, and then later to discredit anyone who suggested the two were kept out of each other's scenes on purpose, and then later to call people "conspiracy theorists" and the like if they suggested the final scene was a trick? Yeah, like I'm gonna believe this article now. It makes zero sense given just plain logic and common sense that Archie could have been the heavy/transgressor given how glowingly the rest of the cast talks about her, how little actual power she'd have on that set as an easily disposable co-star, etc. I'm rolling my eyes reading that damn piece. There's a CLEAR pattern here--an escalation. And if I sounded "nuts" suggesting some of the press were in their pockets before and they were desperately puling strings to try and turn the tide... does it sound so nuts anymore? Every time they've been backed into a corner on something, a little time passes and then ANOTHER item appears somewhere going against the general tide. These people are dirty, filthy and despicable if this is what they're resorting to now. I mean we already knew they though the public was stupid (thus the denial ploys we've seen on everything), but now to ask us to believe someone who could have easily been fired was the root of all of this? Come the fuck on. Then to go and pay off someone at In Touch to print this? Good lord. 9 Link to comment
M.F. Luder May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 These people are dirty, filthy and despicable if this is what they're resorting to now. I mean we already knew they though the public was stupid (thus the denial ploys we've seen on everything), but now to ask us to believe someone who could have easily been fired was the root of all of this? I think they were hoping that people would buy the "it's story driven" argument that JM kept spewing. Then when they finally had the 2 characters in the same scene, they must have thought no one would ever figure out that it was a split screen. Now, when those two things have been exposed as lies, they have to point the finger at Archie so that when they and Julianna refuse to comment about the situation, they can say they are choosing the higher ground by not badmouthing a difficult co-worker. Anyone who has been paying attention can tell immediately that Archie is not the problem. 6 Link to comment
Kromm May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 I SO hope this continues to blow up in their faces. I mean I originally thought it was sad, then felt very insulted as they continued to peddle bullshit, then got mad when they inferred people on the net like us were crazy, but now I've gone over to actively wanting them to crash and burn totally. I also hope the journalists who have cooperated (go back in this thread and you can easily trace the guilty ones) get what's coming to them too. Probably not. The entertainment business runs in large part on favors and graft. It's just that this one situation has been so badly managed the strings became visible. 3 Link to comment
M.F. Luder May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 The problem for me is that these kind of articles could ruin AP's career if she gets a bad rep. JM or the Kings are being very stupid and selfish. I hope Archie gets a bigger role in season 3 of The Fall. She seems to get along really well with Gillian Anderson and Jamie Dornan, so hopefully that will help to curb any potential reputation hit she might get from her problems with JM. And hopefully her development deal with Fox helps to increase her presence in the US and her career continues to thrive. I agree with those who say that it's JM and the Kings who are being tarnished in this situation. 5 Link to comment
Kromm May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 I agree with those who say that it's JM and the Kings who are being tarnished in this situation. It depends on how many people who see reports like this In Touch one actually use their brains and think about how and why a report like this would come out--that it's clearly illogical (even just having the wherewithal to ask "does this make sense", I mean), and who benefits most by rumors like this being spread. Also it takes actually having monitored the situation a bit in the past. WE know there has been a progression of weaselly denials, and then some stories in the press that reeked of manipulation, but Joe or Joanne Average buying their copy of In Touch Magazine at their Supermarket checkout probably doesn't. 1 Link to comment
photo fox May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 Come the fuck on with that article, In Touch. If Archie was such a heinous bitch, why would every other cast member who has commented on her leaving just shower her with praise? Ridiculous. The clumsy way this whole thing has been handled is making the Kings look like complete amateurs. They need to spend their summer hiatus taking a couple of classes with Shonda Rhimes called "Controlling Your Cast" and "Throwing Shade in the Media". Say what you will about Shonda - and I say a lot - but this would not have happened on one of her shows. The Kings are (mostly) good writers, but I don't know if they'll get another EP gig after this. 13 Link to comment
LakeLover May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 Come the fuck on with that article, In Touch. If Archie was such a heinous bitch, why would every other cast member who has commented on her leaving just shower her with praise? Ridiculous. The clumsy way this whole thing has been handled is making the Kings look like complete amateurs. They need to spend their summer hiatus taking a couple of classes with Shonda Rhimes called "Controlling Your Cast" and "Throwing Shade in the Media". Say what you will about Shonda - and I say a lot - but this would not have happened on one of her shows. The Kings are (mostly) good writers, but I don't know if they'll get another EP gig after this. Even someone at Shondaland tried the "Let's smear the actor" tactic, and it didn't work there, either. This is yet another show that 1) used to be good but isn't anymore and 2) has people making millions of dollars who can't suck it up and do their jobs. I'm really done with watching shows that allow behind-the-scenes happenings to dictate their stories and the direction characters go. There are too many other good things to focus on. 2 Link to comment
blixie May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 suggesting some of the press were in their pockets The entire entertainment press is in the pockets of the talent they report on, see again Lainey's explanation of how carpets go, and there is actual video evidence of that from a few years back when Mila Kunis first started dating Ashton Kutcher and was vociferously denying it via her representatives. A reporter decided to ask her about it anyway, the FLAK flipped their shit and said she won't answer that and we're moving on, and Mila was embarrassed and decided she would answer it...and then lied that they weren't dating. They never DATED, they just got married one day and had kid. Actors and stars only give you the information they want you to believe no matter how patently fucking ridiculous that story may be. Having said that this story is from In Touch, one of the most PURE FICTION tabloids on the market (People, OK, and Us are slightly more respectable, but only slightly and 85% of their content is the result of explicity deals with celebrities), no one respects these guys, NO ONE. Archie's career is not in danger from that piece, but I do think this article was absolutely the product of JM team, they are quite obviously the "on set source". I love that the evidence she was horrible to *the crew* is that she had the audacity to slam a door in the producer star's face. Sure the boom guy is just like the lead star producer actress. 2 Link to comment
Ohmo May 30, 2015 Share May 30, 2015 (edited) The problem for me is that these kind of articles could ruin AP's career if she gets a bad rep. JM or the Kings are being very stupid and selfish. I don't think this will happen. The average person who picks up an InTouch and hasn't read anything else might buy that Archie's the problem, but as has been mentioned, the logic doesn't track for most people. To pay someone who is not a big-name star to be a problem for years makes no sense. Heck, even my mother, who does not watch TGW and knows nothing about Archie Panjabi except that she played Kalinda, put the blame on Julianna. Mom likes to know about some of the BTS TV info. Her response: "That's probably why Julianna didn't get any "big" shows after ER. She's probably difficult to work with." Edited May 30, 2015 by Ohmo 2 Link to comment
Black Knight May 31, 2015 Share May 31, 2015 The "source" is totally a plant. Well, I did wonder whether JM just had the laziest, most incompetent publicist ever...now I can scratch "laziest" off the list. Most incompetent is still a contender because I think this is a poor strategic move. They've been counting on AP playing it relatively classy and confining herself to just throwing some subtle shade in the form of "Ask the producers" and such. Now, with this article, it'll be shocking if there isn't a leak from her camp, or someone in the crew. It was dumb to escalate it like this. And I'm pretty sure if anyone on the show is treating the crew like personal servants it's JM. Remember that interview she gave after S1 where she complained about her working hours and said she was going to talk to the writers about not including her in scenes where she was more background than central? Meanwhile, the crew is there before anyone else and leaves after everyone else, and for a lot less money and recognition than JM. She never shows any awareness that other people routinely work hard or harder and for less. It's also rich that she wants the show to revolve around her character while not working as much, when the natural solution for reducing the workload of a lead is to have other characters take on more. The thing about Shonda vs. the Kings is, Shonda did have her own cast problems in her early years as a showrunner. But she learned from them. She put her "no assholes" policy into place. It's natural for new showrunners to make mistakes. What's disturbing about the Kings is that their situation is getting worse, not better - after several years of dealing with this, they still don't seem to have a clue about how to handle it. 6 Link to comment
CleoCaesar May 31, 2015 Share May 31, 2015 Now, with this article, it'll be shocking if there isn't a leak from her camp, or someone in the crew. 11 Link to comment
Kromm May 31, 2015 Share May 31, 2015 (edited) The "source" is totally a plant. Well, I did wonder whether JM just had the laziest, most incompetent publicist ever...now I can scratch "laziest" off the list. It's not just a planted source, This Carly Sitzer person is clearly a corrupt journalist (and likely the editor is too). There's no way the person writing that piece didn't know they were being fed bullshit and actively cooperate. Just like the other journalist (Emily Yahr) who a few weeks back called us evil people on the net "conspiracy theorists" and "truthers" knew exactly what SHE was doing. And in the middle there were a couple partially compromised people who acted all dismissive and scornful of the idea that the final scene was faked, then did an "oh god" about face only when pushed by endless mockery by people tweeting and article commenting. Most incompetent is still a contender because I think this is a poor strategic move. They've been counting on AP playing it relatively classy and confining herself to just throwing some subtle shade in the form of "Ask the producers" and such. Now, with this article, it'll be shocking if there isn't a leak from her camp, or someone in the crew. It was dumb to escalate it like this. It does SEEM dumb because it seems to push Archie into a corner where she'd have to more actively defend herself. They may have thought of that though (as incompetent as they seem overall). She may be under an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with some horrible penalties if she breaks it. Edited May 31, 2015 by Kromm 1 Link to comment
merylinkid May 31, 2015 Share May 31, 2015 IF they did this knowing that Archie couldn't retaliate due to an NDA, they are still idiots. 1) they would look even worse if she defended herself and then they penalized her for doing so). 2) Because a good lawyer could find their way around that sucker in nothing flat. 3) she could do it anonymously as a "source on the set" just like they did. Who could prove otherwise? The journalist is not going to give her up. The smartest thing was to let this one die. One the press for season 7 started, everyone would forget the feud, especially with Kalinda gone anyway. 3 Link to comment
kieyra May 31, 2015 Share May 31, 2015 I read the gossip piece last night and the only thing that has stuck with me this morning is that she slammed a door in JM's face. This tells me that they were too afraid to make up anything too egregious or easily countered. And the framing of JM as the victim tells me where the story came from. So, so stupid. We stopped watching the show about six episodes back and won't be catching up or continuing. Good job, TGW, for putting yourself up there with Sleepy Hollow in terms of ruining your show with behind the scenes fuckery that could have been avoided. 2 Link to comment
Janimo May 31, 2015 Share May 31, 2015 Could be that folks are worried about JM and lawsuits. Here are a couple of links from the past regarding a case that was settled:http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/julianna-margulies-threatened-malicious-prosecution-608979 http://deadline.com/2013/08/julianna-margulies-settles-good-wife-commissions-lawsuit-with-ex-managers-573511/ It's kinda funny, but I switch the channel when I see/hear a Chase commercial with her voice. Won't watch anything JM does any more, either...not that I've been a huge fan anyhow. As for Archie......love,love,love her and her work. What a classy lady, imho. :) 1 Link to comment
Black Knight May 31, 2015 Share May 31, 2015 Janimo, those links are pretty interesting. I'm most struck by the fact that Margulies settled the case after she lost an "emergency appeal" in which she said that it would do her harm to be on the witness stand in a trial. What, exactly, was she so afraid of being asked about while on the stand? 3 Link to comment
Ohmo June 1, 2015 Share June 1, 2015 Janimo, those links are pretty interesting. Agreed. In my opinion, even though one of the articles used a lot of legal language, it left me with the very strong impression that JM has a malicious and combative personality with anyone who dares cross her...period. Archie appears to be just one of many recipients of Julianna's attitude 2 Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule June 1, 2015 Share June 1, 2015 Could be that folks are worried about JM and lawsuits. Here are a couple of links from the past regarding a case that was settled: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/julianna-margulies-threatened-malicious-prosecution-608979 http://deadline.com/2013/08/julianna-margulies-settles-good-wife-commissions-lawsuit-with-ex-managers-573511/ It's kinda funny, but I switch the channel when I see/hear a Chase commercial with her voice. Won't watch anything JM does any more, either...not that I've been a huge fan anyhow. As for Archie......love,love,love her and her work. What a classy lady, imho. :) I'm actually surprised that we didn't talk about this back when it first came out over on TWoP. I know we had a media thread there, and both of these links aren't to obscure sources. At least, I don't remember any discussion about this back then. Link to comment
blixie June 2, 2015 Share June 2, 2015 (edited) It was discussed at TWoP, but generally people who cast aspersion on JM were clucked at as gossip hounds. Damn straight I am. Okay I just realized you meant the lawsuits, I think people were more pre-occupied with how far and how long the onscreen exiling was going to go on than with Margulies otherwise boring lawsuit with her former agents/managers. Lainey Gossip points out the obvious that A) Margulies walked a red carpet and didn't have to field a single question about the feud, and certainly not because no one wanted to ask and B) that the In Touch article is coming from JM's camp. Edited June 2, 2015 by blixie 4 Link to comment
Maherjunkie June 2, 2015 Share June 2, 2015 I am so into gossip I could make Cindy Brady seem demure. This inquiring mind has always wanted to know! Plus, it's fun to hate on JM. 2 Link to comment
ACS June 17, 2015 Share June 17, 2015 Anyone planning to participate in the I Am Not A Crackpot extravaganza on the podcast? I think our speculation here is ripe for the picking. Also, I feel that if we don't keep the issue alive the forces for bad(television writing) win. Link to comment
ACS June 17, 2015 Share June 17, 2015 Could you elaborate on this podcast? Absolutely. I am referring to the weekly podcast hosted by the creators of this very site. I am not a crackpot is defined here as "perfectly sensible opinions the world has yet to embrace for some stupid, misguided reason." They are doing a full episode of "I am not a crackpot" submissions while the usual team is on a hiatus. Link to comment
Kromm June 18, 2015 Share June 18, 2015 (edited) Absolutely. I am referring to the weekly podcast hosted by the creators of this very site. I am not a crackpot is defined here as "perfectly sensible opinions the world has yet to embrace for some stupid, misguided reason." They are doing a full episode of "I am not a crackpot" submissions while the usual team is on a hiatus. Well if you do it and use what's discussed in this thread as an example, make sure you include the whole "cycle" of the thing--the explanation of how at EVERY stage* of this situation there was some conveniently placed barb (usually by a connected journalist) calling it a conspiracy theory or using other loaded disparaging terms. Until it basically got proven... and then they all went mysteriously silent. * -- Stage 1: when people first started noticing the two actors never appeared on screen together. Stage 2: when people started noticing the two actors never appeared at media events together. Stage 3: When people started noticing plots that went out their way to disconnect the two characters, even when it made sense for one or the other to at least be in the same room/in the background even if they were mad/awkward with each other Stage 4: When the producers started telling transparent lies about the situation and that struck people as odd. Stage 5a. and 5b: the two little performances (and lies by the producers) about Kalinda's last few appearances Anyway, at every stage of the above, it just saying it was (at first) treated like crackpottery. Edited June 18, 2015 by Kromm 2 Link to comment
PhoSoup July 23, 2015 Share July 23, 2015 (edited) Maybe the actresses should have sucked it up to reunite Alicia and Kalinda if that's what the writers wanted, but then again, from a storyline point of view and on a human level, it's never been absurd for Alicia to not want to be friends with Kalinda anymore. At least, that's something I've always understood. It's an evolution of the plot that the writers and producers decided at the end of season 2 and the two options have always been, fix that friendship or let it be gone forever. Both would have been believable, however the fact that some fans wanted the Alicia-Kalinda friendship back so bad doesn't mean it should have been done if the writers didn't have anything interesting to do with it. You can't argue with a creative decision simply because it wasn't what the fans wanted. And I'm not saying it's impossible JM had her say in it, however stating that it was out of ego because she didn't want anyone else to shine is an unfair shortcut as there has been no evidence of JM being difficult to get along with. If we all assume they hate each other, why blame it all on JM? Simply because she's the star of the show, she has to be a bitch? Why is it OK to put it all on JM but not AP? The fact that JM has more power doesn't explain or justify anything - maybe AP started it, maybe JM had her reasons too? We don't know. That's why I hate jumping to these kinds of conclusions because people are just going to interpret, squeeze and distort everything they'll find online and act like it's facts. In the end people are only going to side with the actress they like better, which I understand, but don't use non-existent reasons to bitch about JM. Edited July 23, 2015 by PhoSoup Link to comment
Black Knight July 26, 2015 Share July 26, 2015 Maybe the actresses should have sucked it up to reunite Alicia and Kalinda if that's what the writers wanted, but then again, from a storyline point of view and on a human level, it's never been absurd for Alicia to not want to be friends with Kalinda anymore. At least, that's something I've always understood. The problem with this is two-fold: 1) The show did reconcile the two characters. They devoted more than a season's worth of episodes to that process, and even after their friendship disappeared offscreen they continued to be referred to as friends and to look out for each other as friends would. The show never wrote a new estrangement in. 2) Even if we ignore the entire reconciliation arc, where has it ever been a requirement that characters have to be on civil terms to share screentime? Alicia and Will/Diane were on bad terms for a while, and as Alicia hilariously commented to Cary at one point, they now saw them more than when they actually worked at the same firm. Characters being on the outs with each other typically increases screentime, because it's conflict, and conflict is interesting. Think of all they would've been able to mine from episodes in which Alicia knew super-investigator Kalinda, who had so often been key in helping her win her cases, was now working against her on the other side. "She slept with my husband and now she's causing me to lose cases and is jeopardizing my new firm" from Alicia's side and "I slept with her husband before I even knew her, and then she dumped me like yesterday's garbage after everything I did to help her" from Kalinda's side. That's inherently interesting, and we never got anything like that. As for AP and JM, it's simply an understanding of how things work. AP wasn't a producer or a lead, so she had no power. JM is a producer and a lead, so she has plenty of power. And if AP had been the problem, she would have been let go. That's how it works. That's what was so fascinating about this where TGW was concerned: A conflict like this typically goes one of two ways, either one of the actors is fired or the actors continue to work together. Never before has a show kept both actors around while tying itself into knots writing the scripts to assure that they'd never, ever be on the same set together. Ending it with the hilariously bad splitscreen/CGI'd hijinks that they did in AP's final two episodes was just the capper. 19 Link to comment
Janimo July 26, 2015 Share July 26, 2015 Thank you ,Black Knight!!! (Y)You are much more eloquent that I could ever be. Link to comment
whatsatool July 29, 2015 Share July 29, 2015 I read once that Suzanne Pleshette would not allow her legs to be on camera. Maybe JM takes it to another level. 1 Link to comment
Macbeth August 22, 2015 Share August 22, 2015 It was pretty clear to me that just as JM sidelined AP - the show sidelined, as much as it could, JM's character the 1st half of last season. (I stopped watching when the show went on winter hiatus.) The show was not at all subtle about how the troops were rallying around Carey, while Alicia was doing her "It's all about me" running for office with a separate cast of characters. I think the show said "fuck it" with the loss of JC and the impending loss of AP. It was like they were saying fine JM you can't work with AP we will give you a separate show to star in. I know there have been many legendary feuds - but I never heard of a show that went to the lengths "The Good Wife" did to separate fighting co-stars. They tanked a major storyline for JM. I think the Kings were hoping that at sometime,things should calm down and go back to normal, but it never did. I spent my time watching the last season of the great show "Justified." JM could learn from that show's star Timothy Olyphant. TO starred in not 1 but 2 series where his charcter was was overshadowed by another star. 1. Deadwood by Ian McShane's character (McShane also had star billing so thems the breaks) and 2. Justified. Walter Googins character was supposed to be killed off in the pilot but his character was so dynamic that he ended up as a co-star with with his own storyline throughout the entire series. TO and WG ended up good friends. If its good for the show JM - and the show is a hit, its should all be good.... But too late for that now. This show is so off the rails.... 5 Link to comment
ParadoxLost December 15, 2015 Share December 15, 2015 (edited) I don't know any new gossip, but I feel the need to dust this off. Its bizarre that the lack of onscreen interaction with Alicia is actually worse and more widespread now that Kalinda is gone. I think they got the ratings a few episodes in and have been notified that the show is cancelled and this the final season and maybe that the budgets are slashed. Jeffrey Dean Morgan is announced as a series regular over the summer and then is able to take a job on the Walking Dead. Makes no sense. It seemed like he's gone as of last night although I haven't seen an official announcement of his departure date. They are isolating the storylines with Alicia, Diane/Cary, and Eli/Peter to a ridiculous degree. Last night was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Something is really fishy about all this, beyond diva theatrics and especially when it worsens the reported diva's reputation by engendering speculation. Maybe it saves production costs or to let the actors have more time (via less scheduling conflicts) so they don't have to miss pilot season. Given the bad press last year, the only other explanations I can think of is that the backstage fallout of the Archie stuff was so divisive that they've gone defcon-Moonlighting on backstage dramatics and they are separating everyone from JM. Or they think they can keep the show for season 8 and are planning to reboot it in another locale with just Alicia and are getting us used to it. I saw an article the other day, positing the idea that Alicia/Lucca was the only good part of the show and it was time to cut Lockhart Agos loose and that Eli was ruined. It didn't seem show affiliated but it made me go hmmm, maybe this is a plant from the show (because of the wrongheadedness on how to fix the show). Edited December 15, 2015 by ParadoxLost 7 Link to comment
possibilities December 15, 2015 Share December 15, 2015 I haven't watched the show this season, because I was too bitter over the BS, but it's interesting to hear that "having excised the target" the show has still not returned to normal show behavior. 2 Link to comment
whatsatool December 16, 2015 Share December 16, 2015 (edited) So is the lack of ensemble a cost cutter or JM not wanting to wait around or both. Sinatra, Eastwood and that guy who directed The Thin Man were all guys who hated multiple takes. Maybe JM would do better in theater. Oh no then she couldn't get home to her kid. She could,as producer, simply not hire actors who require multiple takes like Archie. Surely there are enough of them out there, as well as directors who work quickly and under budget. On another note. When this show is ridiculous, it does remind me of Boston Legal, which I adored. Edited December 16, 2015 by whatsatool Link to comment
ParadoxLost December 17, 2015 Share December 17, 2015 (edited) If its JM, I'd think its not about takes but maybe about working hours. I used to watch a soap and there was an actress that they wanted to keep enough, after she just had a couple kids, that she basically got a concession to only work two days a week. But the show didn't want the appearance that she was just reoccurring, so they overhauled the storylines and shooting schedule to make it appear that someone working part time was working full time. On screen, that looked a lot like what is going on with the Good Wife. The character was in a lot of episodes, but storylines became very narrow and the character became almost a hermit and there was no interaction with more than one or two characters when the character had connections going back decades. I think two things were going on there 1) there were only so many actors they could tell that their schedule was being jerked around to accommodate demands beyond the norm by another actorand 2) its simpler to get the actor out when its a simple storyline with minimal participants. Its possible that JM became a producer and decided she wasn't willing to put up with long hours anymore and had the clout to make that happen and the quality of the show (and her reputation at this point) are secondary. Edited December 17, 2015 by ParadoxLost 2 Link to comment
milkyaqua December 17, 2015 Share December 17, 2015 I saw an article the other day, positing the idea that Alicia/Lucca was the only good part of the show and it was time to cut Lockhart Agos loose and that Eli was ruined. As it's looking now when you watch this season, it doesn't make sense to keep the Lockhart Agos portion of the show no matter how much I like Christine Baranski. They are really having to come up with reasons to have those characters there. The Kings need to just reset or this really is the last season and they just don't really care especially since they are working on bringing a new show to fruition. Either way, it's messy. She could,as producer, simply not hire actors who require multiple takes like Archie. Was that the real reason? Because even if it is, there were cleaner ways to resolve it. Link to comment
pennben December 17, 2015 Share December 17, 2015 I've got to believe this is the last year. There is no other explanation. 1 Link to comment
whatsatool December 17, 2015 Share December 17, 2015 (edited) I've got to believe this is the last year. There is no other explanation. Not a Rawhide? Edited December 17, 2015 by whatsatool Link to comment
ParadoxLost December 18, 2015 Share December 18, 2015 As it's looking now when you watch this season, it doesn't make sense to keep the Lockhart Agos portion of the show no matter how much I like Christine Baranski. They are really having to come up with reasons to have those characters there. Well yes, but that is entirely manufactured by the show. Its like they intentionally made creative decisions to get viewers to say exactly your comment. Its not that hard to include L&A. Don't have some random client hate Alicia causing her to be unable to return to the firm. Have her win the SA election so she can go up against them in high profile criminal cases. Heck, there is no reason that Alicia's practice can't magically have enough prominent clients due to Peter's Prez bid to go up against L&A in civil suits. 1 Link to comment
Noreaster January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 So this is a few months old...but here are tweets suggesting Archie Panjabi was difficult behind the scenes. Looks like one of the Previously TV founders tweeted something negative about Julianna Margulies and then a couple of people with connections in the entertainment industry tweeted back that they heard Archie Panjabi was at fault. I don't know any of these people, but the Previously TV person seems to respect them. https://twitter.com/taraariano/status/649666447266877440 1 Link to comment
Tetraneutron January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me. Assume it's true. Assume Archie Panjabi is a raging bitch (not that I see why that means they should write her out; we all have asshole co-workers and are expected to still do out jobs, but Hollywood is apparently different). Then, why didn't the Kings just write her out? Instead, they kept giving her juicy storylines and deeply involving her in the show, they just wouldn't let her share scenes with JM. Apparently Josh Charles, Matt Czuchry, and all the other actors were just fine working with a bitch. The Kings worked with her to the extent they made her the centre of all sorts of non-Alicia plots (the ex-husband thing was supposed to be a major arc before they scrapped it). Instead they wrote themselves into knots to avoid her sharing the screen with JM but otherwise didn't lessen her role on the show. And that's not even getting into that JM was lying about why AP wasn't at Paleyfest or why they had to use the split screen in her final scene. 3 Link to comment
Noreaster January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 (edited) If a difficult actor/actress is playing a popular character, then of course the show would try to keep him/her around. Also, an actor/actress can get along with some people and not with others. Edited January 23, 2016 by Noreaster 1 Link to comment
ParadoxLost January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 So this is a few months old...but here are tweets suggesting Archie Panjabi was difficult behind the scenes. Looks like one of the Previously TV founders tweeted something negative about Julianna Margulies and then a couple of people with connections in the entertainment industry tweeted back that they heard Archie Panjabi was at fault. I don't know any of these people, but the Previously TV person seems to respect them. https://twitter.com/taraariano/status/649666447266877440 Still doesn't explain for me why Alicia is still isolated from everyone but newbies. It may not go as far as refusing to share the screen but its still strange and stinks of JM being a big part of the problem. Link to comment
Noreaster January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Maybe those are simply the stories the writers wanted to tell. I mean, we could spin anything in the most anti-JM way possible or realize we know nothing about what's going on behind the scenes. 2 Link to comment
whatsatool January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Imagine if Mary Tyler Moore had avoided her costars like JM does hers. 2 Link to comment
Tetraneutron January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 If a difficult actor/actress is playing a popular character, then of course the show would try to keep him/her around. Also, an actor/actress can get along with some people and not with others. Right. But there's a difference between keeping them around and writing them good storylines. They keep Carey around but when was the last time he had something decent to do. And as for "getting along with" everyone but one cast member was able to work with AP just fine. The other person couldn't even do a 5 minute scene that the audience really wanted. Honestly, it doesn't matter how much you dislike your costar if you can't suck it up and do it anyway you're a spoiled brat. 3 Link to comment
Noreaster January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 That's speculating that JM refused to do that scene with AP. And speculating that AP worked with everyone else just fine. Maybe the crew just figured why bother filming the two together when they don't get along. Endless possible reasons when we don't have any facts. Link to comment
photo fox January 24, 2016 Share January 24, 2016 Nobody has any facts, hence this is a speculation and rumors topic. I like to think that MC and CB hide out in CB's trailer, drinking wine and taking meticulous notes for their eventual tell-all bestseller. Between belting out Broadway standards, complete with choreography. Lord knows they have plenty of free time. 7 Link to comment
pennben January 24, 2016 Share January 24, 2016 I keep thinking Christine Baranski is sitting on a gold mine....a two chapter gold mine. Chapter 1: My time on "Cybill". Chapter 2: My time on "The Good Wife". Gold. I say take the money and then devote book two to her fascinating career on Broadway and in Hollywood. 11 Link to comment
missytas January 26, 2016 Share January 26, 2016 (edited) Hi all, long time reader, first time posting. I stopped watching the show at the end of season 6, but have been keeping up-to-date with the forum. I'm a fan of AP and this info was disappointing to read. So this is a few months old...but here are tweets suggesting Archie Panjabi was difficult behind the scenes. Looks like one of the Previously TV founders tweeted something negative about Julianna Margulies and then a couple of people with connections in the entertainment industry tweeted back that they heard Archie Panjabi was at fault. I don't know any of these people, but the Previously TV person seems to respect them. https://twitter.com/...666447266877440 Of course, everything's speculation and we'll probably never know the truth, but I was wondering, if this is truly the case that AP doesn't get along with folks, could this be part of the reason we haven't heard anything about her project with Fox? Anyone have news? from her interview back in May with The Guardian: Do you know what’s next? Before I left, Fox gave me a talent deal where they have you exclusively: send you scripts, talk about ideas and try and find the perfect match for you. Ideally, I would like to do a really good drama. I’m just trying to find something that’s really right. Edited January 26, 2016 by missytas Link to comment
Recommended Posts