S06.E18: Loser Edit

[pennben]

 

Makes me wonder though, if a gay couple could sue a wedding planner for denying them service, could they sue a priest for refusing to officiate their wedding as well?

 

No.  That one falls squarely under freedom of religion as intended by the constitution (and as codified by even the Civil RIghts Act).  Very, very generally, if the religion doesn't permit something, say gay marriage..you can't force the religion to do something.   These RFRAs are trying to extend that to basic commerce transactions between individuals.

[Long Days Night]

Peter: I know you think I've been a dog, Alicia, and I know you think I've been a bad husband but I've never been as bad as you've wanted me to be.

Really, Peter? Alicia wanted you to do worse than sleeping with call girls?

I don't think that he was referring to his hookers or other cheating with that line. We've seen Alicia be most happy with Peter when he was doing something Machiavellian to get her something she wants. Remember when she got him to threaten the headmaster of the private school so that her kids could be readmitted there? Remember when she had him send a state investigator to Patti Nyholm's office? She admires him when he is the guy who causes traffic jams in midtown Chicago to depress her rival's vote count. That's the kind of bad she likes.

[pookat]

And Finn! Always wear glasses. They look so good on you.

I have noticed that the camera lingers on Finn when he is wearing or playing with his glasses. Jerks. They know what they're doing.

(I have the same reaction to Harrison Wells on The Flash)

The camera put a lot of focus on Wiley's kids. I wonder if that will play into it too, such as Wiley will have to lie too in order to protect his kids from something. I don't know. I just think they were zooming in on the food and the kids too much for it to be nothing. But then, maybe that's what they want us to think. LOL.

I wondered if it meant Kalinda was thinking of how she could off this guy to save Cary, Diane and herself, but ultimately continued to remind herself that she couldn't take out the father of two kids. She can be bad, but never evil. Edited April 7, 2015 by pookat

[izabella]

I found the debate between Diane and RD's friends fantastic, and easily made this episode one of the best of the season.

 

I did, too.  It was smart, engaging writing.  They should do more of that kind of writing.  And I love how Diane handled herself.  She will be in a world of trouble when this metadata stuff comes out.  I would not want to be Kalinda when Diane hears about this.

[Noreaster]

Also, I do understand that politicians (including Obama) pander to people to get elected but I hate it when news outlets and shows like this get the facts wrong. It would've been better if they had used Secy of State John Kerry or former Secy of State Hillary Clinton as an example of evolving on the issue instead of Obama.

I thought the Oliver Platt character mentioned Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton in addition to Obama.  

 

And then we have Alicia, who has everyone scrambling around, lying for her to cover up HER lies and transgressions, and trying to keep her in a position she doesn't deserve. 

So over the past few weeks, I've seen several posters say that Alicia didn't deserve to win.  I guess I don't really understand why. What makes a person deserving?  In real life, I suppose an SA candidate should have some experience as a prosecutor.  But on The Good Wife, Alicia's opponent was a TV legal commentator who hadn't practiced law in some years (I think).  How is Prady more qualified or deserving?  Being so idealistic and "good" suggests to me that he would be an ineffective leader.  Alicia didn't really do anything that bad during her campaign.  She hid some some truths and spun some stories to gain donations and votes.  So what? They don't really have much to do with whether Alicia would be a good SA.  I mean, I get not liking the direction for Alicia's character, but she really isn't any worse than the show's other major characters who often do questionable things to get the job done.  

[cali1981]

So who is this Wiley character? His totally absurd behavior aside, I remember him as a private investigator. But how is it that he investigates a case for the government? Is it common for the government to outsource their investigation?

 

 

One thing that I wonder about is why anyone agrees to speak to Wiley, or Kalinda for that matter.  Why not say "show me a court order or get the hell out of my office"  Are possible suspects that cooperative with PIs in real life?    In regard to the episode itself it was just more blah, blah St. Alicia, blah, blah Sleazy reporter, blah, blah, Eli acting like an asshole, blah, blah.  The part that I enjoyed was Diane's involvement with the the anti-LGBT rich conservatives, both her Q andAs with them and the mock court (nice to see Richard Mazur as the judge).  It was current, relevant and very well done in regard to both viewpoints.  Oliver Platt and Christine Baranski are both strong actors and they play off one another well.

[pennben]

 

So over the past few weeks, I've seen several posters say that Alicia didn't deserve to win.  I guess I don't really understand why.

 

In general, I agree Noreaster, him being a better person than her doesn't mean that she didn't win the election (or deserve to win).  Lot's of folks that I don't want to win do, some who even do shady things, and that's life.  Assuming her campaign didn't participate in voter fraud (per previews), I have no issue with her winning.  And honestly, I would have vomited had she dropped out upon realizing that Prady was a "better" person than her.

 

What I haven't put my finger on is why I've just lost any rooting interest in her character here.  And, I can't fully peg that.  I think part of it is the show has her swinging from wildly naive to wildly smug episode to episode this season (and sometimes within the same episode).  We saw this arc (mostly minus the smug) when she started at the firm. And yet, they are trying to play that same arc again when she got into the campaign (even though we know she's savvy now and has been for awhile).

 

And hey, I've rooted for lots of anti-heros in lots of shows, even those going from light to dark.  Hell, I even find Peter nuanced.  Maybe that's it.....the show has never really given her nuance this season.  Perhaps they are building to that, but it has been a really painful ride.

 

Hell, I know lots of folks didn't like her conversation with Peter in this episode, but I loved it:  he's not as bad as she thinks he is/was and she's not as good as she thinks she is/was.  That is building to nuance.

 

So, here's to hoping.

Edited April 7, 2015 by pennben

[HyacinthBucket]

So over the past few weeks, I've seen several posters say that Alicia didn't deserve to win.  I guess I don't really understand why. What makes a person deserving?  In real life, I suppose an SA candidate should have some experience as a prosecutor.  But on The Good Wife, Alicia's opponent was a TV legal commentator who hadn't practiced law in some years (I think).  How is Prady more qualified or deserving?  Being so idealistic and "good" suggests to me that he would be an ineffective leader.  Alicia didn't really do anything that bad during her campaign.  She hid some some truths and spun some stories to gain donations and votes.  So what? They don't really have much to do with whether Alicia would be a good SA.  I mean, I get not liking the direction for Alicia's character, but she really isn't any worse than the show's other major characters who often do questionable things to get the job done.  

 

I understand and respect what you are saying, but for me, it comes down to one thing.  Trust.  As a teacher, parent, and wife, trust is huge for me.  I know that makes me naive when it comes to the political world, but since we've seen Alicia and Prady and what they are willing or not willing to do to win an election, I prefer Prady because he didn't stoop to the level that Alicia did.  

 

At this point, I consider Alicia's actions to be dishonorable, and "honor" is another biggie for me, too.  

Edited April 7, 2015 by HyacinthBucket

[needschocolate]

If the evidence was falsified, then is Cary back to being in trouble?  I was so happy when Cary's ordeal was over and now it might come back?  Has Cary had any other story line this season - any trials or cases - other than occasionally standing next to a desk and Diane and talking to Alicia via speakerphone?

 

Yeah, what is with the constant kids on this show? Is that what most high powered lawyers do? Let kids run amok? 

 

I think it was supposed to be funny - like when they a monitor rolling around the office bumping into things (it was one employee's way of working from home).  The Kings keep trying to add a few laughs to this show, but they often fail miserably.  

 

It's ridiculous to finally drop the bomb about Alicia's affair, something they've basically teased since the first season and have it be . . . nothing. A sex scandal for St. Alicia, the scorned wife, an excuse to rehash all the dirty sex stuff with the freaking Governor, sexually explicit emails. And none of it ends up mattering. Peter doesn't care. Alicia threw Ramona in his face all season and has been claiming the moral high ground and Peter's fine with it? He doesn't even think what it could do to his political career? Alicia points out how bad it is that he's the cuckold and he laughs it off? For that matter, why the hell is Eli fine with it? He works for Peter, remember. And it's total bullshit that by quietly telling them to some friendly reporters it goes away. This isn't some backroom-deals-for-garbage-collecters kind of scandal. This is sex and there are leaked e-mails. This makes The Daily Show. This is Wolf Blitzer's next 10 shows.

 

It makes no sense.  There were silly youtube videos with the kids in earlier seasons that were made out to be bigger scandals than the emails will be.  

 

In real life, just because someone else has the story/interview first that doesn't stop reporters from talking about it to.  Sure, it is nice to be the first one to broadcast the info, but, if you are not, the other interviews would create interest in your story and people will still tune in.   Viewers aren't going to say "Oh, I heard her interview and she said it was just flirting and her sex-scandal husband says she has integrity, plus, her husband's campaign manager says it was no big deal, so I won't bother watching another interview."  In real life Petra's station would have done promos touting "You've heard the rumors, we will show you the actual emails!" and "St. Alicia says it was merely flirting - now you decide"   

 

One thing that I wonder about is why anyone agrees to speak to Wiley, or Kalinda for that matter.  Why not say "show me a court order or get the hell out of my office"  Are possible suspects that cooperative with PIs in real life?    

 

Ever watch the last 5 minutes of any of the CSI shows? - The police tell the suspect that they have a hair that places them at the scene and they know he is the killer and the suspect almost always admits tot he crime and and explains his motive.  

[maraleia]

Another thing that irked me about this episode was the piece they were doing on Alicia. This would never happen with a States Attorney because they are supposed to be at a higher level than the other elected officials in a city. The most press Anita Alvarez gets is when she announces something new or if she shows up at events as one of the dignitaries.

I swear the Kings have no idea what Chicago is like at all. Shakes fists.

[readster]

Another thing that irked me about this episode was the piece they were doing on Alicia. This would never happen with a States Attorney because they are supposed to be at a higher level than the other elected officials in a city. The most press Anita Alvarez gets is when she announces something new or if she shows up at events as one of the dignitaries.

I swear the Kings have no idea what Chicago is like at all. Shakes fists.

 

 Its like the reveal last week that Geneva was really behind Kerry's framing and the Bishop investigation from the start. Also Castro telling Alicia she can't stop it and shouldn't try to stop it. I was like: "She has all the power in the world as the SA. She can do that." If anything, Alicia can even point out that Geneva went through unethical means to get Bishop and it also makes it looks like Bishop had Castro on his payroll. Trust me if Alvarez wanted an investigation stop, she could with a snap of her fingers. She is the SA, not Geneva. Also, when Alicia told Bishop if he named his Lts he be set then he argued he couldn't. That was even stupider because if Bishop does plan to go: "straight" his other guys would fold fast without his backing and money or be eaten up by other kingpins. The Kings have no idea how it works in the legal system, political system or even the drug trade.

[FuriousStyles]

I think one of the reasons I've lost interest in Alicia (other than her general smugness) is that the show has gone away from its basic beat, which is to show a woman struggling to find her way in the workforce after being away for 15 years and how she balances that with her family (kids and husband).  Zach is away at college, I get that, but Alicia has hardly even mentioned him.  Grace (the forgotten child) is only around for seconds at a time and only when it has something to do with religion.  As if that's the ONLY thing she and Alicia can now talk about.  And of course Peter, there is hardly any interaction there too.  Now I know Chris Noth has it so he doesn't have to be available a lot, and in earlier seasons while it was still glaring to see Peter absent for certain situations it was understandable and easier to excuse because there were other things going on.  But now its just been part of a bigger problem.  

 

Alicia being the new SA will only serve to distance Alicia from the rest of the cast.  She'll be off doing her thing, and Cary, Diane and the rest of the firm will be on the other side and basically only meeting in court.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Alicia being the new SA will only serve to distance Alicia from the rest of the cast.  She'll be off doing her thing, and Cary, Diane and the rest of the firm will be on the other side and basically only meeting in court.  

 

 

And not even that--meeting in court, unless it's a VERY HIGH PROFILE CASE! Because the SA is a political position, and Alicia has all those ASA's who will do the actual prosecuting. Or is this show going to change things and have Alicia prosecuting every case? That would be like having Adam Schiff/Norawhat'sherface/Foghorn Legorn Arthur Branch/Jack McCoy (after he became DA), front and center prosecuting the defendants in criminal cases.

[apgold]

 

Diane will still be screwed. In other words, Diane is probably more screwed than Kalinda is at this point.

 

I don't think Diane is going to be disbarred but similar to what happened to Will when he was suspended for supposedly bribing a judge (or whatever it was).  Her record otherwise is impeccable.  Then she can take time off and go hunting with her hubby in the woods.

[Tetraneutron]

We won't see the SA prosecute cases. We've never seen that on this show. Not when Peter or Glenn Childs or Castro were the SAs did they ever appear in court. It will be the same now. Apparently Julianna Margulies hated filming courtroom scenes because they took so long. Now she won't have to. All the legal stuff can be her meeting with opposing lawyers or judges or whatever, in a non-courtroom setting.

[GHScorpiosRule]

We won't see the SA prosecute cases. We've never seen that on this show. Not when Peter or Glenn Childs or Castro were the SAs did they ever appear in court. It will be the same now. 

 

Actually, Childs and Castro, did appear in court to prosecute cases. One case each, because both were high profile. I can't recall what the cases were but I do know they both appeared as prosecuting on behalf of the State instead of the ASA.

 

As for Peter? Of course not, because when the show premiered, his ass was on the way to jail.

[Noreaster]

What I haven't put my finger on is why I've just lost any rooting interest in her character here.  And, I can't fully peg that.  I think part of it is the show has her swinging from wildly naive to wildly smug episode to episode this season (and sometimes within the same episode).  We saw this arc (mostly minus the smug) when she started at the firm. And yet, they are trying to play that same arc again when she got into the campaign (even though we know she's savvy now and has been for awhile).

 

And hey, I've rooted for lots of anti-heros in lots of shows, even those going from light to dark.  Hell, I even find Peter nuanced.  Maybe that's it.....the show has never really given her nuance this season.  Perhaps they are building to that, but it has been a really painful ride.

 

Hell, I know lots of folks didn't like her conversation with Peter in this episode, but I loved it:  he's not as bad as she thinks he is/was and she's not as good as she thinks she is/was.  That is building to nuance.

 

So, here's to hoping.

I think you hit on exactly what's been lacking in the Alicia campaign storyline for me.  Lack of nuance. Some of these episodes have been more like campaign issue of the week.  Here's an overly simplistic issue, here's how Alicia overcomes it.  Done.  There isn't much meat to the stories and there haven't been compelling adversaries.  Alicia is interesting when she interacts with more complex issues and individuals.  Prady was so boring....he just wants to do good.  Seriously?  One complaint on this board that I agree with is that Alicia has never shown why she wants to run for SA.  I think the same complaint could be applied to almost every aspect of the campaign story.  Why does Prady want to run?  What does Redmayne really want?  What does Bishop expect in return from funding the PAC?  What does Alicia have to say and do to appeal to key voting blocs?  

 

Anyway, I hope the writing improves on the Alicia front.  They need to surround her with other well-written characters.  It doesn't even have to be the other major characters.  The Diane stuff recently has been pretty strong and it's mainly because of her interactions with Gary Cole and Oliver Platt. 

[Hanahope]

One thing I like about Diane's storyline, both with her husband and with RD, is demonstrating that it IS possible to like and respect someone who you fundamentally disagree with about most things. It seems that in this day and age of Facebook, the hivemind mentality has made people so much more intolerant. I have seen people post status updates like, "If you own a gun, defriend me right now." I remember specifically enjoying my friendships with people with very different points of view in college because I learned so much from talking with them but now it feels like there is more of a my way or the highway attitude. I like that Diane's relationships with both men are portrayed realistically, meaning that they aren't pretending that the opposites attract principle means they magically avoid arguments. They can disagree but without hating each other.

 

 

I agree that its great to show this, though I agree it would seem to be very rare in a husband/wife.  Certainly it shows up in families, I know my own family cringes at some of my facebook postings, just as I cringe at some of theirs.  But we all still love each other and put up with our different political views.  I used to be on the opposite side from most of my friends in college, but I did eventually see their way of thinking and changed mine. :)

 

 

On any given day on any given hot-button issue, I can listen to Fox news and right-leaning talk radio and hear not only the exact positions but also hear identical language used to explain those positions.

 

 

I'm convinced that they circulate a memo first thing in the morning with all the "talking points" on which they have to discuss that day, with exact words and  phrases to use.

 

 

In his case, I think "as he rose through the political ranks" equaled "so he didn't lose the votes of relatively conservative Black churchgoers". I doubt he would have gotten elected in 2008 if he'd come out in favor of gay marriage at that point because he probably would not have had a big chunk of the Black vote. That voting bloc likely would have stayed home on election day.

 

See, I don't get why they would stay home and allow the party that's opposite to 90% of what they want/believe to win, simply because they may disagree with their party's candidate on 10%.

 

 

Every single one of them had the right to say "I'm not talking to as long as the kids are around."   See how far he gets in his job then.   LG/FA enabled this behavior instead of putting their foot down.   They did the same with Patti Nyholm.

 

Yeah, I think he uses them as a distraction, but he may also have child care issues.  I'm certainly sympathetic to that, I've had to bring my kids to work occasionally and its not easy.

 

I can't believe as smart as Kalinda is, she didn't mix up the location of the ticket, or at least not use the exact same words as the other computer guy.

[TigerLynx]

I wish when RD mentioned Bill, Hillary, and Obama's flip flop on the issue of gay marriage, Diane had pointed out that politicians are supposed to represent the people of their district, state, etc., and that the people of the USA's position on gay marriage has changed over time.  Politicians aren't supposed to represent their own self-interest, lobbyists, big business, green businesses, oil companies, farmers, unions, special interest groups, bail out financial institutions, etc.  They are supposed to do what is best for the country as a whole, and their individual constituents.  In order for that to happen, there shouldn't be career politicians who stay in office 20, 30, or more years.  There should be limits on how long they are in office.  That goes for both parties who are completely out of touch with the average American Citizen/Tax Payer.

 

I would like Alicia's journey better if it had involved her moving on from Peter.  Divorcing Peter, and having to make a life for herself and her children while rejoining the work force after a 13 year absence could have still had the same issues and SLs they've dealt with.  I thought the first two or three seasons were the best, and the longer they drug the Alicia/Peter stuff out, the more I lost interest in Alicia's personal story.

Edited April 7, 2015 by TigerLynx

[MakeMeLaugh]

Politicians aren't supposed to represent their own self-interest, lobbyists, big business, green businesses, oil companies, farmers, unions, special interest groups, bail out financial institutions, etc.  They are supposed to do what is best for the country as a whole, and their individual constituents.  In order for that to happen, there shouldn't be career politicians who stay in office 20, 30, or more years.  There should be limits on how long they are in office.  That goes for both parties who are completely out of touch with the average American Citizen/Tax Payer.

I completely agree and fwiw, I never ever ever vote for an incumbent past two terms, no matter how awful the opponent might be. If everyone did this, it would effectively create term limits and maybe the parties would start taking notice. (I know it won't happen.) Back to our regularly scheduled discussion....

 

I wish this episode had about 75 percent less haranguing at us in it. Geez it got boring. Real classy Diane to involve RD's nephew in the mock trial--couldn't have bashed us over the head with your position (which I agree with) without him?

 

If Alicia ends up going back to the office and not being SA because of the surprise malfunctioning voting machines, it really will just be the "it was all a dream" season imho. Blah. Don't do it, David Hyde Pierce.

Edited April 8, 2015 by MakeMeLaugh

[bikebrh]

I'm sorry, but if I was any of the F/A lawyers I would throw Wiley's unprofessional ass out of my office. get a f*cking babysitter and come back, you asshat. I'm not your day care. I don't know, that whole thing with him and his kids makes me want to punch him. F*ck him.

[Kel Varnsen]

I'm sorry, but if I was any of the F/A lawyers I would throw Wiley's unprofessional ass out of my office. get a f*cking babysitter and come back, you asshat. I'm not your day care. I don't know, that whole thing with him and his kids makes me want to punch him. F*ck him.

For that matter why is anyone talking to him at all. They work in a law firm right? Why can't Kalinda/ the computer guy or whoever just say they are not going to talk to him at all? Rather than making up fake information, say that the information is part of their legal files and they are not going to disclose it.

[MakeMeLaugh]

I'm sorry, but if I was any of the F/A lawyers I would throw Wiley's unprofessional ass out of my office. get a f*cking babysitter and come back, you asshat. I'm not your day care. I don't know, that whole thing with him and his kids makes me want to punch him. F*ck him.

Plus one thousand. Incredibly annoying on the screen, even more unbelievable in real life. Who would take him and his questions at all seriously? Also it's horrlble parenting, in that being dragged around in a car all day and hurried into professional offices are really not very beneficial to child development. It can't be a childcare emergency if it has happened before on the show (and even if it was an emergency, wouldn't he just try to get the information another way, oh, I don't know, maybe over the phone??? since he really didn't need to actually see anyone).

Edited April 9, 2015 by MakeMeLaugh

[TV Diva Queen]

It's been making me crazy, but I can't seem to find the name of the actor who played Judge Solomon in the mock trial that R.D. had Diane act as plaintiff's attorney in.

He looked so familiar.

Any ideas?

David on One Day at a Time.  LOL

[CoderLady]

I'm sorry, but if I was any of the F/A lawyers I would throw Wiley's unprofessional ass out of my office. get a f*cking babysitter and come back, you asshat. I'm not your day care. I don't know, that whole thing with him and his kids makes me want to punch him. F*ck him.

 

Now I'm imagining this: someone asks him to leave but he ignores that request, so the person starts unchildsafing the office in a big way: setting a steaming hot cup of coffee in front of the youngest child, offering the most pointy and dangerous desk supplies (letter openers and spray bottles of whiteboard cleaner, anyone?) to the bigger kids. Thumbtacks all over the floor. All silently while the jerk continues asking questions. Every time he takes something away from a kid, the F/A person hands another kid something lethal. It would get old fast.

 

I know I'm overthinking the actions of fictional characters but envisioning this makes me ghoulishly happy.

[cheyz]

It's ridiculous to finally drop the bomb about Alicia's affair, something they've basically teased since the first season and have it be . . . nothing. A sex scandal for St. Alicia, the scorned wife, an excuse to rehash all the dirty sex stuff with the freaking Governor, sexually explicit emails. And none of it ends up mattering. Peter doesn't care. Alicia threw Ramona in his face all season and has been claiming the moral high ground and Peter's fine with it? He doesn't even think what it could do to his political career? Alicia points out how bad it is that he's the cuckold and he laughs it off? For that matter, why the hell is Eli fine with it? He works for Peter, remember. And it's total bullshit that by quietly telling them to some friendly reporters it goes away. This isn't some backroom-deals-for-garbage-collecters kind of scandal. This is sex and there are leaked e-mails. This makes The Daily Show. This is Wolf Blitzer's next 10 shows.

 

 

 

There was no affair in the first season.

 

"Sleeping with the boss" is the practically the first rumor/explanation thrown at any successful woman. Really the only reason it wasn't brought up more during the campaign is because Will was dead, and everyone else figured it was just the standard rumor-mongering.

 

As far as Peter and Eli go, they are pragmatists. They were more concerned about handling Alicia to get the issue handled correctly. Besides again, old news.

[Tetraneutron]

There was no affair in the first season.

 

"Sleeping with the boss" is the practically the first rumor/explanation thrown at any successful woman. Really the only reason it wasn't brought up more during the campaign is because Will was dead, and everyone else figured it was just the standard rumor-mongering.

 

As far as Peter and Eli go, they are pragmatists. They were more concerned about handling Alicia to get the issue handled correctly. Besides again, old news.

Yes, I know there was no affair until the end of the second season, but Alicia and Will were in love with each other starting from the first episode. The fact thatthey didn't resume sleepi9ng with each other since the end of season 2 isn't the point. It was still a ticking time bomb. 

 

And most people don't actually believe every woman is sleeping with her boss. A few sexists might, but it's never take seriously by the world at large. Unless there's solid proof, like a series of sexy, explicit emails. Then, yes. Before, it might have been rumour that Chicago political insiders knew about but the voters had no clue. Now the voters know. And the voters don't know the real story. As far as they can tell from the e-mails, Alicia screwed her way in to a job and no one will ever forgive her for that, especially since she's also the scorned wife of the governor. It wasn't brought up the campaign because there was no proof. (Although there was a scene where Prady says he'd bring it up if Alicia brought up the courthouse shooting, they never followed up on that). Making that accusation without proof is gross and sexist. But with proof, which there now is, that's a game changer. 

 

Bottom line, there's no way these emails don't completely destroy Alicia's career. Peter and Alicia would outwardly support her but inside do desperate damage control.