blixie March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 they had better explain it. Like they dealt with Cary getting his ass kicked by Kalinda's husband? The Kings do this a lot, especially with Lana, I feel like every plot point they've ever had with her ramps up to the edge of canyon and leaves it there, only to promptly forget that Lana exists. Banging Kalinda is bad news for your character's plot resolution. 5 Link to comment
milkyaqua March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 (edited) I'm hoping next week is the payoff to this week's epi otherwise, I'll just be content with rolling my eyes through a good portion of it. Where I work we get annual training regarding PII and what to do and not to do on our computers. It's actually mandatory in that if we don't complete, we're barred from using one of our major programs until we complete it. Also, I too once sent an email to someone complaining about having to constantly tell this person over and over again about how something worked. Of course, I sent it to the person I was complaining about. Lesson learned. And I too just assume that our IT folks our monitoring everything on our network. I'd even go so far to say that a former co-worker was quietly shown the door behind something involving child porn/pedophilia. So I thought surely lawyers would be more careful about this type of thing even on a fictional show, but apparently not. But hey, always nice to see John Glover on my TV and welcome back Julius even if it's only to annoy David Lee, heh. Edited March 30, 2015 by milkyaqua 1 Link to comment
Lovecat March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 The whole email plot was obviously inspired by the Sony Hack which did have a lot of embarrassing emails surface. Problem is, lawyers know better! This episode was like a parody or a SNL skit of The Good Wife. With a little bit of Mean Girls thrown in for good measure--I almost expected the snarling lawyers to turn into Serengeti animals and start ripping each others' throats out. It was hilarious watching them all go at each other! Otherwise, I spent the whole episode tracking Alicia's and Kalinda's paths through the offices. For once they were both there at the same time. Did they ever appear in the same room? NOPE. 7 Link to comment
beeble March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 QUOTE Did Alicia just figure out that the SA's salary was lower than a private litigator's? I can imagine her thinking, "But when Peter was SA, he seemed to always have soooo much money! Why did the salary drop so much since then?" This lady is not built for Chicago. Of course not. None of that was her being surprised at her new salary or at the fact that her firm was negotiatingh and trying to get her off cheap. She expected it, just like Diane and Cary expected she would angle for more money. That's why she brought Finn in with her. To negotiate on her behalf. They were treating it like any other negotiation they do as lawyers. I don't get why people are confused at this plot; it seemed pretty straightforward. Thank you, although I was being sarcastic and knew this. My point - and I assume many others as well - was that Alicia didn't seem to do much forward planning. She knows that the firm is treading water, and she knows how little a state's attorney makes, and considering her financial concerns in the past (affording her condo and paying her kids' tuition) and her needs in the future (paying for the kids' college), I found this ridiculously short-sighted. Then again, she spends most of her time with supposedly seasoned adults who reveal their deepest and darkest secrets over email using an unsecured server so expecting her to think out possible consequences is probably asking too much. 6 Link to comment
izabella March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 Alicia just gets more and more unlikeable with every episode. So how did Redmayne contribute 'seven figures' to her campaign? Would he have done that by forming his own PAC or contributing to the PAC Bishop had formed? 1 Link to comment
rubyred March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 I feel like an idiot but as I was watching Alicia priss around, smirking in willful naivete, I finally realized why she ran in the first place. This is All. About. Peter. Alicia is bound and determined to take Peter's old role and "do it right." She thinks she's a crusader but she's already compromised and won't admit it. But the thing that gets me is that even though IANAL and have no political aspirations, even I know you don't treat major donors like that. And for Alicia, who stood at Peter's side for years as he navigated the political landscape/swamp of Chicago, to play the wide-eyed innocent is downright offensive. Particularly as she is about to do the same damn thing Peter did, hire a white male as Deputy SA over others with seniority -- even though Eli pointed out to her the short-sightedness. Thank god for Eli. And thank god he shut down Marissa's 20-something rose-colored-glasses view of the situation. I like you Marissa but these are shark-infested waters. Listen and learn. The email stuff went on too long but was hilarious nonetheless. Julius! I missed you! Calling David Lee "Blanche" - oh man, that was everything. Haven't they done the illegal downloading plotline at least twice already? It would be so, so delicious if the Good Wife got embroiled in her own sex scandal. Please, let those pigeons come home to roost. (I'm sure she'll wriggle out of it somehow). 5 Link to comment
Black Knight March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 (edited) So how did Redmayne contribute 'seven figures' to her campaign? Would he have done that by forming his own PAC or contributing to the PAC Bishop had formed? Redmayne said in his first episode he was contributing dark money. What that means is that he would've given it to a 501[c] group which then donated the money to Alicia without having to reveal that Redmayne is one of the donors to the 501[c] group. That's the particularly insidious thing about dark money, it's a great way to buy candidates without the public having a way of knowing who's bought them. There are no limits on the amount 501[c] groups can spend. Edited March 30, 2015 by Black Knight 5 Link to comment
TigerLynx March 30, 2015 Share March 30, 2015 How does this law firm stay in business? They spend more time fighting with each other, and their own clients, than they do actually working. Oh that's right, they are always having financial difficulties, and on the verge of bankruptcy. I can't imagine why that is. 4 Link to comment
Tetraneutron March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 (edited) Particularly as she is about to do the same damn thing Peter did, hire a white male as Deputy SA over others with seniority -- even though Eli pointed out to her the short-sightedness. Thank god for Eli. That's not quite what happened. First, I don't think we ever learned who Peter's second in command was. Eli didn't want Alicia to pick a black guy because he had seniority, or someone good was being overlooked, or to redress historical wrongs, or any ideological or righteous reason. He wanted it as a photo op so they could placate a political constituency. That's essentially what he told her, you use your #2 to pick at token, someone who buys you political capital. Meanwhile, Castro wanted Alicia to keep his (persumably white) guy, so he could maintain some control, Redmayne wanted Alicia to appoint his (certainly white) guy, not because he's the best choice but so Redmayne could have control. And then Alicia sybolically rejects all these other people and picks her friend, because she can trust him. And it's an interesting point. Because Eli, shilling for a black candidate, wasn't pretending that he was picking the most qualified person out of some objective criteria after an exhaustive search. He was being pandering and cynical. But none of them were choosing the best guy either. Not Alicia, Castro, or Redmayne. If people usually get the #2 spot because of cronyism or friendship, then how can people claim picking a white guy is a result of pure meritocracy, like people like to claim every time a minority gets a high-profile job? And when we talk about affirmative action or hiring minorities in an attempt to provide representation or whatever, that's what usually gets thrown around. Instead we see that these jobs don't ever go to the person who is objectively the most qualified, if it's even possible to make that kind of decision. Both the black candidate and the 3 white candidates are in the conversation because of what they can do for various people. At least when Alicia picked Will, she did it because the thought it would help her run the SA's office, regardless of how much she ignored privileged systems. Besides, who should Alicia have picked? Some guy she'd never heard of on Eli's say-so, after Eli's main selling point was "here's how he can insulate you politically"? (As though Eli isn't completely corrupt, working for Peter, and has his own agenda). Geneva, who's pretty corrupt herself? Who? I actually think that was a good part of the episode and that (minus that odd Feguson ep) the show has shown racial issues with way more subtlety than we usually see on TV. Edited March 31, 2015 by Obviously 2 Link to comment
Thog March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 How does this law firm stay in business? They spend more time fighting with each other, and their own clients, than they do actually working. Didn't they hire Taye Diggs a while back? Maybe he's doing all the work behind the scenes while they bicker. And he's got Robyn helping him. 9 Link to comment
Sarah D. Bunting March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 "Why should Alicia roll over and accept the lower offer when she could hold out for more?" She can't; she has to divest herself ASAP. That's the point. 2 Link to comment
TV Anonymous March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 I find it interesting to see that Alicia flat out refuses to use her new position as a favor to those who supported her, yet at the same time she uses her new position as a favor to herself during her exit package negotiation. 5 Link to comment
rubyred March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 That's not quite what happened. First, I don't think we ever learned who Peter's second in command was. Eli didn't want Alicia to pick a black guy because he had seniority, or someone good was being overlooked, or to redress historical wrongs, or any ideological or righteous reason. He wanted it as a photo op so they could placate a political constituency. That's essentially what he told her, you use your #2 to pick at token, someone who buys you political capital. Meanwhile, Castro wanted Alicia to keep his (persumably white) guy, so he could maintain some control, Redmayne wanted Alicia to appoint his (certainly white) guy, not because he's the best choice but so Redmayne could have control. And then Alicia sybolically rejects all these other people and picks her friend, because she can trust him. I understand what you're saying, but that wasn't what I was referring to. Back in the day when Peter had to choose a second, he chose Cary, of all people. Mostly to stick it to L/G (Will), and Cary was bitter and more than eager to do so. Peter got some sideeye for that so he asked Geneva flat out if he had a "race problem" (paraphrasing) and she said, "Duh." And he was like "...." And then she listed all the women and PoC with more seniority that he passed over because he wanted a buddy as his second. And not to put too fine a point on it, Alicia herself brought up Peter's hiring record just weeks ago with that "racism without being racist" folderol when her numbers were down. I could not care less who Alicia installs as Deputy. Of course she wants a friend by her side. But having a second with political capital is not in and of itself a bad thing, particularly when you're a novice politician whose main contacts include former clients and shady dudes whose money you pretend doesn't disgust you even as you passively accept their support for your campaign. TL; DR: Wasn't making a case for Affirmative Action, just referring to show history. Geneva is corrupt? I know she had an affair but I don't know if I'd call that "corrupt." 8 Link to comment
photo fox March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 Didn't they hire Taye Diggs a while back? Maybe he's doing all the work behind the scenes while they bicker. And he's got Robyn helping him. Speaking of magically disappearing and reappearing characters, hello, Julius! Long time, no see. The explanation was that "they closed the New York office." Who did? FAL never had a New York office. They can barely keep the Chicago one running. L/G? Why would that make him a voting partner at FAL? They took over the office, so they get any former L/G employees who mistakenly wander in the door? And wouldn't Alicia know if FAL voted to take him on as a partner? This show. I know I need to just concentrate on the acting and stop observing the plots too closely, but damn. 5 Link to comment
buttersister March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 Are we supposed to hate the title character like this? I have since day one. The smug kills. I liked the part when it looked like there was going to be a posse of interested parties imploding her term before it got started. I'd watch that. 4 Link to comment
TV Anonymous March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 Speaking of magically disappearing and reappearing characters, hello, Julius! Long time, no see. The explanation was that "they closed the New York office." Who did? FAL never had a New York office. They can barely keep the Chicago one running. L/G? Why would that make him a voting partner at FAL? They took over the office, so they get any former L/G employees who mistakenly wander in the door? And wouldn't Alicia know if FAL voted to take him on as a partner? Just like with the e-mail case, it seems like the writer thinks that just as Florrick/Agos moved back to the premises that was occupied by Lockhart/Gardner, Florrick/Agos became the continuation of Lockhart/Gardner. Just look at the partners negotiating with Alicia on her termination package. Only Cary is original F/A partner. The other three are partners that moved from L/G. Would the partners who built the firm from the coffee shop agree with that arrangement, including having Diane as de facto Managing partner? 3 Link to comment
vibeology March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 Just like with the e-mail case, it seems like the writer thinks that just as Florrick/Agos moved back to the premises that was occupied by Lockhart/Gardner, Florrick/Agos became the continuation of Lockhart/Gardner. Just look at the partners negotiating with Alicia on her termination package. Only Cary is original F/A partner. The other three are partners that moved from L/G. Would the partners who built the firm from the coffee shop agree with that arrangement, including having Diane as de facto Managing partner? Right, where is Carey Zepps? Have the writers forgotten a plot to big it took an entire season to play out? FA is not LG. The same people are not in charge and the emails from 2 years ago should not matter. I really hate that the show did this amazing thing by starting a new firm and then squandered it by basically hitting the reset button. Either the writers are stupid or they thing I'm stupid. 2 Link to comment
Kel Varnsen March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 (edited) So I am curious (we don't have elected prosecutors in Canada), but would it even be possible for Alicia to have a multi-million dollar campaign? I would be curious if anyone has run the numbers to see if it is even possible to spend that amount of money in such a short time (maybe 6 months?). I mean it was a local campaign, with a staff made of mostly volunteers, and Eli calling most of the shots in his spare time (while being the Governor's chief of staff). Other than ads and rent on the head quarters, what other expenses would they have? Plus I assume she would be affiliated with a political party right? Wouldn't they also help fund her campaign? Also has anyone ever heard of a torrent site that has a help line? Edited March 31, 2015 by Kel Varnsen 2 Link to comment
candall March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 Redmayne ... 501[c] group ... insidious... no limits I think this is how the Kochs donate billions to the Republican agenda. Campaign regs would be laughable if they weren't, you know, tragic. Also has anyone ever heard of a torrent site that has a help line? If there is, let me know. I can NOT figure that shit out. 1 Link to comment
Kel Varnsen March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 Oh yea and reading the recap made me wonder one other thing. Why was it that the director of the movie was the one suing the torrent site? Wouldn't it normally be the studio (the ones who would actually own the movie)? 2 Link to comment
blixie March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 If there is, let me know. I can NOT figure that shit out. Haha me either! Like I always end up with buckets of spy/adware and no file to show for it. 1 Link to comment
needschocolate March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 This show has drifted so far from what would or could happen in real life that I now watch it through "looking for nits to pick" glasses. Case in point, when Redmayne, an elderly, heavy-set man, sat down on the couch he sank deep into it, I said "he's not going to be able to get up again" (we used to have a couch like that - the foam and springs were shot). But he magically gets to his feet within seconds. And what is the point of his daughter? That "joke" reached it's expiration date a long time ago. I have always been okay with some drifting from real life when they are working on a case. I don't want the cases to drag on for years like they do in real life. And the way they keep changing their strategy or coming up with a completely new strategy make the case much more interesting than if they spent 20 minutes discussing the nuances of trademark or copyright law. But, I have to ask those of you who are lawyers - does this 4-5 different strategies in one case (let alone one meeting) ever really happen? Do you ever get into a case, find out that the strategy you intended to take is not going to work (your client uploaded the movie himself) and you go out an search for a new strategy (trademark whatever) to try, and when that doesn't work (directed marketing) you search for another new strategy? I would think that you would have spent time before trial or negotiations trying to determine how your opponent would respond and coming up with back up strategies (or had multiple charges). I'm getting impatient with the Bishop storyline. He makes a lot of threats but nothing happens. Even if Alicia tells Geneva Pine to stop going after him, the FBI has an independent investigation on him. They made a big deal of Bishop asking Kalinda to put the blank white card in Lana's wallet. She defied his request and he is A-Okay with it? Has he forgotten all about it? Is it going to come back as a surprise? Bishop is now like the bully in most every family sitcom - all talk and no action. I half expect a scene where someone, like Marissa or Grace, walks up to Bishop and says, "Oh yeah, go ahead, big shot" or give him a punch in the nose, and he runs away bawling. I also half expect Peter to resign as Governor (after some scandal, I suppose) and join Cary and Diane and the firm can keep "Florrick" in it's name It would be so, so delicious if the Good Wife got embroiled in her own sex scandal. Please, let those pigeons come home to roost. (I'm sure she'll wriggle out of it somehow). Based on the emails Ms Blue Jay posted at the beginning of this thread (thanks you Ms Blue Jay), I envision Alicia saying, "It depends on your definition of 'sex' " 3 Link to comment
TV Anonymous March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 Right, where is Carey Zepps? Have the writers forgotten a plot to big it took an entire season to play out? FA is not LG. The same people are not in charge and the emails from 2 years ago should not matter. I really hate that the show did this amazing thing by starting a new firm and then squandered it by basically hitting the reset button. Either the writers are stupid or they thing I'm stupid. My guess is having two sets ready in the studio (one for L/G downtown office one for F/A loft) turned out to be financially and/or logistically inefficient. That was why they needed to consolidate the office settings into one. Since downtown setting was more established, they kept that. Pure speculation on my part. Having written that, the writer tricking us into believing that old office premise equals old organization is unacceptable. Link to comment
kwnyc March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 I also half expect Peter to resign as Governor (after some scandal, I suppose) and join Cary and Diane and the firm can keep "Florrick" in it's name This would be so damn funny...I'd totally watch that spinoff. 7 Link to comment
Ms Blue Jay March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 (edited) Is this the first time it was confirmed to the viewers that Alicia had an affair with that guy, whatever his name is? Stephen Pasquale? Is this not a big deal to anyone? I kind of thought it might be but I also don't care? She's still married right? You're so welcome, needschocolate. Less fun than posting nude screenshots of Nate from "How to Get Away with Murder", but still kinda fun. Edited March 31, 2015 by Ms Blue Jay 1 Link to comment
TigerLynx March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 I was wondering about the email from Alicia to Elfman, "It was just a one night stand." Why didn't we see it on screen? Link to comment
Kel Varnsen March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 I was wondering about the email from Alicia to Elfman, "It was just a one night stand." Why didn't we see it on screen? I was wondering about that too. I haven't been giving the show my undivided attention the last few episodes so I was wondering if it was something I missed. Kind of annoying to find out about it now, although I am not sure I buy it. I mean I get that Alicia doesn't care, but at the same time Johnny is some sort of political up and coming future Eli type guy right. I am thinking if it ever got out that he slept with the married candidate, who was actually married to a very powerful governor, I imagine it would kill his career (even if Peter or Alicia didn't care). 1 Link to comment
CleoCaesar March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 I think it's just Hollywood shorthand. Whenever two characters are making out and the screen fades to black, it's code for "they did it". 3 Link to comment
TigerLynx March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 They should have had it on screen. It would have helped a little bit to explain why John was so angsty about whether he should stay or go. Regardless, Alicia needs to ends her marriage to Peter, and start having a real life. 1 Link to comment
Hanahope March 31, 2015 Share March 31, 2015 I too am surprised that people would really write those sort of emails in this day and age. I know lawyers would argue that such emails would never be produced in any legal case, attorney work product privilege and all that,but really, with anyone and everyone getting hacked, anyone who would really believe that such emails don't have the potential for being released is just too incredibly naive. Even if you don't get hacked, what if the person you send the email to becomes a disgruntled employee? Its getting published to everyone then. First rule of thumb should always be, read it before you send it and if you can't read it out loud to your family, delete it. If you really have to say it, do it in person (maybe the phone, but those could potentially be hacked/bugged too). I've wanted to send snarky emails to my coworkers too. I don't. I walk to their office and say it directly. No paper trail here. Second, I can't believe Alicia was so naive to not know how to talk to donors after the election. Really, no one, Eli, instructed her what to say beforehand? I'm surprised Alicia's settlement/capital contribution with the firm would be less than 7 figures. The sum they were talking sounded more like a year's draw, not the value of her investment, especially since FAL is pretty much LG. Link to comment
doodlebug April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 (edited) I get her thing about getting money from the firm so that she can make sure she has enough for collegeI get her thing about getting money from the firm so that she can make sure she has enough for college Well, based on a quick web search; Peter's salary as governor is S170,000 or so while as Cook County state's attorney, Alicia would be pulling down even more, about $192,000. Of course, he gets to live in the Governor's mansion, too. If they really have problems affording college for their kids with an annual joint income of over $360,000; I find it hard to be sympathetic. Granted, they probably spent most of their savings on Peter's legal troubles a few years back; but Alicia has been earning top dollar for quite a while now. No reason she cannot afford college tuition for 2 kids at this point. I don't blame her for wanting to maximize her buyout from FAL, but college tuition is not beyond her reach. Maybe her wine budget needs trimming. I have no doubt that Lockhart Gardner informed Alicia when she was hired that all emails belonged to the firm as did her computer and both were subject to search at any time. Even if she was diddling' her boss; she would have to be stupid to think that those emails (sent from her business email addy no less!) were in any way private. That's just stupid, and so is this show sometimes. Edited April 1, 2015 by doodlebug 2 Link to comment
pennben April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 (edited) Of course, he gets to live in the Governor's mansion, too. Not that this really has anything to do with the show, but trust me when I tell you that that is not a perk! It is a woefully undermaintained structure that essentially has become a dump (and rarely used in recent years, since most Governor's maintain a residence in Chicago and most business is done in Chicago). I laugh that the new Governor (a massively rich man) pledged to live there and now is stuck living there when in Springfield. Teehee! Edited April 1, 2015 by pennben Link to comment
AudienceofOne April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 I was wondering about the email from Alicia to Elfman, "It was just a one night stand." Why didn't we see it on screen? They should have had it on screen. It would have helped a little bit to explain why John was so angsty about whether he should stay or go. Ahh... they did have it on screen. At the end of the episode... two weeks ago ?? or something like that. They came back from somewhere and they kissed and went into her apartment and the next ep had them a little more intimate than they should be. Link to comment
nara April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 I feel like an idiot but as I was watching Alicia priss around, smirking in willful naivete, I finally realized why she ran in the first place. This is All. About. Peter. Alicia is bound and determined to take Peter's old role and "do it right." She thinks she's a crusader but she's already compromised and won't admit it. But the thing that gets me is that even though IANAL and have no political aspirations, even I know you don't treat major donors like that. And for Alicia, who stood at Peter's side for years as he navigated the political landscape/swamp of Chicago, to play the wide-eyed innocent is downright offensive. Particularly as she is about to do the same damn thing Peter did, hire a white male as Deputy SA over others with seniority -- even though Eli pointed out to her the short-sightedness. That's not quite what happened. First, I don't think we ever learned who Peter's second in command was. Eli didn't want Alicia to pick a black guy because he had seniority, or someone good was being overlooked, or to redress historical wrongs, or any ideological or righteous reason. He wanted it as a photo op so they could placate a political constituency. That's essentially what he told her, you use your #2 to pick at token, someone who buys you political capital. Meanwhile, Castro wanted Alicia to keep his (persumably white) guy, so he could maintain some control, Redmayne wanted Alicia to appoint his (certainly white) guy, not because he's the best choice but so Redmayne could have control. And then Alicia sybolically rejects all these other people and picks her friend, because she can trust him. And it's an interesting point. Because Eli, shilling for a black candidate, wasn't pretending that he was picking the most qualified person out of some objective criteria after an exhaustive search. He was being pandering and cynical. But none of them were choosing the best guy either. Not Alicia, Castro, or Redmayne. If people usually get the #2 spot because of cronyism or friendship, then how can people claim picking a white guy is a result of pure meritocracy, like people like to claim every time a minority gets a high-profile job? And when we talk about affirmative action or hiring minorities in an attempt to provide representation or whatever, that's what usually gets thrown around. Instead we see that these jobs don't ever go to the person who is objectively the most qualified, if it's even possible to make that kind of decision. Both the black candidate and the 3 white candidates are in the conversation because of what they can do for various people. At least when Alicia picked Will, she did it because the thought it would help her run the SA's office, regardless of how much she ignored privileged systems. Besides, who should Alicia have picked? Some guy she'd never heard of on Eli's say-so, after Eli's main selling point was "here's how he can insulate you politically"? (As though Eli isn't completely corrupt, working for Peter, and has his own agenda). Geneva, who's pretty corrupt herself? Who? I actually think that was a good part of the episode and that (minus that odd Feguson ep) the show has shown racial issues with way more subtlety than we usually see on TV. Alicia should have at least taken some time to meet her existing ASAs before offering the job to FInn, especially since there was a huge discussion recently about whether or not to condemn Peter for racism (or the appearance of it). Speaking of magically disappearing and reappearing characters, hello, Julius! Long time, no see. The explanation was that "they closed the New York office." Who did? FAL never had a New York office. They can barely keep the Chicago one running. L/G? Why would that make him a voting partner at FAL? They took over the office, so they get any former L/G employees who mistakenly wander in the door? And wouldn't Alicia know if FAL voted to take him on as a partner? This show. I know I need to just concentrate on the acting and stop observing the plots too closely, but damn. I can accept that there was a behind the scenes negotiation with Julius that made him have some authority at FA. However, the magical disappearance of all the associates who left LG with Cary and Alicia is annoying. As someone mentioned, what became of Robyn? When was the last time we saw her? Very sloppy storytelling. Since FA took over the LG offices in that "who owns the lease" discussion, I guess we're supposed to assume that they are using the same servers too. The writers appear to regret having FA separate from LG and are trying to ignore that it happened. I also think they've just gotten sloppy. It would appear that Josh Charles chose the right time to leave! 2 Link to comment
possibilities April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 I thought the one night stand between Alicia and her campaign manager was clearly shown on screen. They talked about doing it, then she invited him inside, then they were kissing, then *fade to black,* then awkwardness, and him wondering whether he really wanted to take a job elsewhere.... 1 Link to comment
TigerLynx April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 Ahh... they did have it on screen. At the end of the episode... two weeks ago ?? or something like that. They came back from somewhere and they kissed and went into her apartment and the next ep had them a little more intimate than they should be. They had the kiss, not the sex, on screen. Link to comment
CoderLady April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 Since FA took over the LG offices in that "who owns the lease" discussion, I guess we're supposed to assume that they are using the same servers too. For a show that has such a steady fascination with software development and IT, the writers are so fucking ignorant about it that it gives me a queasy headache when I try to follow their logic. I think they think it's all magic and that no one in the audience is any more well informed than they are, so they can write anything they want that serves the story at hand. I still laugh at a scene from an early episode where they're trying to show how much of a computer genius one of their clients is by showing him typing some code into his laptop while waiting in the L/G conference room. What he's typing is a basic C-language file I/O routine from a beginning programming class. But it looks so mysterious! And whenever they need a bunch of software developers in legal peril, they cast a bunch of young single white Americans with about an equal number of men and women, all fashionably dressed like ambitious TV production assistants. In my experience over the last 15 years developers are usually Asian or European men and women, single or married with children. Americans are in the minority and there are very few women among them. And coders dress for comfort. Ok, I've given myself a headache again. 5 Link to comment
OptimisticCynic April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 How did Elfman's email even get involved since Alicia said she was using her campaign email for the past 2 years? It was in the pile with Will's emails unless Alicia asked her to check both email addresses. Link to comment
pennben April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 As Eli's daughter Marissa explained in the episode, she must have made a mistake flipping through her various accounts and accidentally wrote one from an account she didn't think she was on. Link to comment
CoderLady April 1, 2015 Share April 1, 2015 Uh huh. If she couldn't tell the difference between the interfaces for personal email like Gmail and corporate email like Microsoft Outlook, she's dumber than a bag of hair. Damn idiot writers. Sorry. I'll go take something for my headache now. 5 Link to comment
WearyTraveler April 2, 2015 Share April 2, 2015 Uh huh. If she couldn't tell the difference between the interfaces for personal email like Gmail and corporate email like Microsoft Outlook, she's dumber than a bag of hair. Damn idiot writers. Sorry. I'll go take something for my headache now. While I think the quality of this show has decreased, and that they make a lot of mistakes, this isn't so far fetched. You can configure Outlook to handle several accounts using the same Outlook interface. I have my business email and my Google email bot configured in Outlook. If you're in one account and hit the button to compose an email, it will default to send it from the account you were checking, unless you change it before you hit send. It's an easy mistake to make. 2 Link to comment
Maherjunkie April 2, 2015 Share April 2, 2015 (edited) Does anyone know how to find this topic? Sorry to throw a wrench in the thread. PreviouslyTV posted topic Alicia's Victory Party Is Definitely Over Edited April 2, 2015 by Maherjunkie Link to comment
dcalley April 2, 2015 Share April 2, 2015 Does anyone know how to find this topic? Sorry to throw a wrench it. PreviouslyTV posted topic Alicia's Victory Party Is Definitely Over Clicking the button worked for me. Try http://previously.tv/shows/the-good-wife/ Link to comment
Maherjunkie April 2, 2015 Share April 2, 2015 For some reason that didn't come up, but thank you. Link to comment
CoderLady April 2, 2015 Share April 2, 2015 Does anyone know how to find this topic? Sorry to throw a wrench in the thread. PreviouslyTV posted topic Alicia's Victory Party Is Definitely Over The button in the first post on this page does it for me. The link dcalley posted will take you to a page where you can select the story. I see it in the second position on the page. Link to comment
Maherjunkie April 2, 2015 Share April 2, 2015 I read it now, but when PrevTv posts I only see the Forums page, no articles. Link to comment
lucindabelle April 3, 2015 Share April 3, 2015 The email thing was funny but not realistic. It's why God invented gmail. Everybody knows that emais on your corporate account are the property of your employer. Especially after the governor of south carolina, for pete's sake. I rarely send personal emails from work but when I do, they are not ABOUT work, or in any way scandalous, just things like dinner plans or some other mild gossip. If I want to bitch about my boss, I do it on gmail. Also, HATED that "we're the wave of the future we don't hate you" BULLSHIT. it's justifying theft. People work hard to make movies, songs, books, and expect to be paid for their work. And when they die, thye expect their heirs to be able to benefit from that income for a set period. Douchebag is justifying stealing. He's "freeing" other people's property just as surely as if he walked into someone's living room and stole all their DVDs. At least the guy wanted to apologize because of blackmail not because he was persuaded. Fwiw, publishing emails is also a violation of copyright. You don't have the right to reproduce an email you receive or to publish it anymore than you do a letter. You own the physical copy, but NOT the right to publish it. What the hackers did was totally breaking the law. But, since nobody could trace hwo they were, it's not like it was going to be easy to prosecute. Yes, Alicia's an ass. Aren't politicians supposed to be, you know, political? Why needlessly antagonize Lemond? He CAN'T testify against his lieutenants. What a dickish thing to say. 2 Link to comment
IamBob April 3, 2015 Share April 3, 2015 1) People use work email for personal things. That's part of Hillary Clinton's problem right now -- allegedly, nobody knew how to set her up with a State Department email AND a personal email. 2) I'm surprised at how many politicians don't get the pay cut that they'll receive if elected. Utah's last 2 AGs are facing a criminal trial involving many things, but the root of part of it was making money on a "side business" to supplement their government pay. Senator mike Lee had to short-sell his house (to a friend who then rents it back to him -- nothing fishy there) because he just can't live on a Senator's salary. 3) It's quite natural for a politician's bodyperson (Marissa's job during the election) to become some sort of executive assistant, especially in the time between election day and the swearing in. 3 Link to comment
lucindabelle April 3, 2015 Share April 3, 2015 Actually it's the opposite with Hillary, that she used personal email for work things. My Point is that it s hardly news that corporate email belongs to the corporation. It's one thing to use your work email to say chat about a movie or hold a non work convo, of course, everyone does that... I tend not to because my company's unusually paranoid but loads of people do. But it's quite another to use work email for email sex, and to badmouth colleagues. I have some choice thoughts about my boss. Would never put them in company email. That said it was hilarious. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts