S07.E21: Verdict

[KaveDweller]

1 hour ago, morgankobi said:

Since Peter served jail time under an overturned conviction, could they maybe use his time served for this sentence? Especially if he did not sue after?

How long did he serve before-does anyone know?

I think they said 8 months before.

I have no idea if they would let his time count is time served. It sounds sort of fair, but I'm guessing not. If a person is in prison while waiting for their trial, gets found not guilty, then is later re-tried and found guilty, I don't think the previous pre-trial time counts. That seems kind of comparable.

I'm surprised that there wouldn't be more media at the trial for a sitting governor. I feel like the grand jury trial went on longer and got more attention. 

[PreBabylonia]

12 hours ago, CaptainCranky said:

I like the Jason character as an investigator but as Alicia's love interest, I don't think so.

Agreed, they just don't work well together. I think Lucca and Jason make a much better couple, there's a lot of natural chemistry there. Unlike Alicia, it seems as if they share working class roots. I can imagine that they both had to work extremely hard to get where they are now.

[Tetraneutron]

5 hours ago, lovinbob said:

I hated the fake crying with Canning moment. It felt very out of character. I don't have a problem with Alicia changing, but if she could loosen up in any other aspect of her life maybe I'd believe it.

I thought it was stupid because the show was trying to act like Canning would expect Alicia to cry if he tells her Peter is cheating. The big bad sexist Canning is underestimating poor, plucky Alicia, assuming she'll crumble and whimper and fall apart. But no! Our heroine is strong and sassy! Aren't we over that, as a show? Isn't it well established in-show that Alicia is a capable attorney who won't fall to pieces if confronted with the news that her serial cheater husband, who she asked for a divorce, cheated on her? I hate when the show tries to make Alicia sympathetic by making everyone else horrible. 

Also I agree with the posters who said it was a total retcon that Geneva would have an affair with Peter. Sure, the character's been sleeping with his subordinates all series, as the show made sure to point out (Kalinda, Marilyn, Ramona) but there was that whole arc in season 4 when Geneva hesitantly tells her boss he has a subconscious racism problem? They clearly didn't play that like they were having an affair. And did anyone notice that the show listed the affairs Peter and Alicia each had, but even leaving off Kalinda Peter had way more of them? Reminding the audience who's the sympathetic one in that couple, and giving Alicia reason to leave. 

And Luca is the single most useless character. When she wasn't busy being the chubby best friend in a bad romantic comedy, she was just there to move the plot along. Why is a woman a few years out of law school on the Governor's legal team, if not for Cush Jumbo being contracted for every episode?

[AudienceofOne]

I never got the impression we were supposed to think Peter was having an affair with Geneva. We were supposed to think people believed he was having an affair with Geneva. They're two different things. The entire point of this plotline (and this series when it remembers it) is that the perception of wrongdoing is more important than actual wrongdoing, which is why this faux affair has been brought up. Peter, we know, has fucked half the city. But he's being judged for the half he hasn't fucked. He's been corrupt on many occassions. But he's being judged for a time he wasn't. That's the point.

[Noirprncess]

The writing has improved compared to the being off the season where I was hoping for a quick death of the show.

I thought the fake crying showed a sarcasm with a colleague that Alicia rarely shows.  We laughed because I think she's really just over the relationship with Peter.

I like that Lucca is being used and benefiting from her mentorship with Diane and Alicia.  They have always shown her to be smart and quick thinking.

Somehow, I think the show will end with Alicia moving forward with the divorce without Jason.  He already seems to be backing out.  Diane is going to step away from being a lawyer.

[AudienceofOne]

5 minutes ago, Noirprncess said:

Somehow, I think the show will end with Alicia moving forward with the divorce without Jason.  He already seems to be backing out.  Diane is going to step away from being a lawyer.

I hope so. Because if it ends with Peter in prison and her still married to him and "visiting every week" I'll be furious. It's one thing to dislike the way a show ends. It's another to feel as though there's literally no point to having watched it at all.

And in other news, this story about a Good Wife who doesn't leave her husband after a scandal has ended after seven years with the Good Wife not leaving her husband after a scandal. The end is the beginning! The circle is complete! Why did we drag it out for so long? Money!

[CaptainCranky]

There are so many loose ends with this show it seems to be a daunting task for the writers to tie them all up without some convoluted ending that will leave everyone scratching their heads ala the Soprano's ending.

[Tetraneutron]

Eh, they've already dropped most of the hanging plotlines. They're really just going to resolve Alicia's job and Alicia's marriage. 

Also, am I the only one bored by Diane and Kurt? All they ever do is make schmoopy eyes and declare their love for each other. And Kurt's plotline made zero sense. Whether or not he was accurate in his assessment of the bullets didn't matter at all. What matters was what, if anything, he told Peter. So there was no reason for them to involve Holly, as whether or not Kurt told the truth/did his job properly is completely beside the point. It's a problem with the show in general. Happy couples are boring, so every happy relationship needs pointless drama. (I don't agree that they should have brought up Holly buying Kurt's business. That would be distracting and made it look like Peter's team has it out for her). 

And ugh to everything with the law firm. I THINK the show settled on that the firm would be just women named partners, and a majority of senior woman partners, but not exclusively. Of course, this is stupid because, what, they have a number and if the balance tilts too far in favour of me you need to hire woman partners? Leaving aside that it's discriminatory (David was right, although he was fine with it two weeks ago, so why is he complaining now?), what purpose would it serve? I can maybe see a female-led firm that specializes in issues specific to women, but that's a small niche of the law, not something the third-largest firm in Chicago would do. I mean, we're supposed to assume the firm would keep on representing notGoogle, right? Not that they'd lose 95% of their billing and deal with rape cases? Otherwise why would David Lee still be there. For the last two weeks he was fully on board with the lady firm because the positive branding would equal more money. Oh, and can we not with the idea that these successful, powerful women at the top of their competitive fields would fall apart at a man using the word "bitch"?

[Dowel Jones]

As I remember, Peter said that he checked the bullets out of the crime lab for analysis by Kurt.  Yet nothing at Peter's trial mentioned what happened to the bullets, which went missing and caused the original mistrial.  I would think this would be a major red flag, pointing at both Peter and Kurt, but, unless I missed something, it was completely glossed over.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

The Good Wife Dusts Off Her Old Routine For Peter's Trial

But can even the intercession of St. Alicia save him now?

[Tetraneutron]

12 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

It's the second to last episode, so I'm going to kind of throw away the 'rules' and I apologize up front for that.

1)  Why did Josh Charles want to leave the show after 5 years?
2)  What is Cary's job now?

1) Nobody knows. He said he didn't like the network TV schedule. Rumors abound but he maintained friendly enough relations with the producers to direct a few episodes after he left so probably nothing scandalous. 

2) They didn't say. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Thank you kindly Tetraneutron.

[dinkysquid]

I can't believe we are down to the wire - one more episode!!! It so feels very "incomplete" to me at this point and I'm hoping that next week will tie things up somewhat but not be a huge disappointment like Mad Men or The Sopranos were.

This episode seemed to be all over the map and that whole business with the office getting demoed? PLEASE!!! No one thought to check this out before they started swinging sledgehammers? Such sloppy writing! WTF has happened? This show USED to be so smart, interesting and WELL WRITTEN, something it has not been for 2 seasons now.

My pet peeves? Here goes: Diane and Kurt. Where the hell has he been? Were they separated? Just recently I asked someone where he was and did Diane announce a divorce/separation and I missed it? They make a very strange couple.

Alicia and Peter: Talk about deja vu!! She's right back where she started, playing the loving, dutiful little wifey to a man that she's....divorcing? And did he have an affair with Geneva? Was this something else I missed? And where were their kids? I thought Alicia told Zack not to go to France until the trial was over.

Alicia and Jason: Ugh! Don't like these two together and liked them less when they were acting like over-sexed teenagers, groping in public and then doing God knows what else. She can't seem to decide if she wants this guy for a bit of fun or she's in love with him and same goes for him. I was waiting for Lucca's next question to Jason to be, "So? Are you asking her to the prom?"

That whole tearing the office apart. Oh...wait....I already mentioned that, but since I brought it up....HOW STUPID!!!!

How about a spin off show, with Eli, his daughter, Canning, Lucca, Kalinda and Cary? Just a thought.

[TigerLynx]

I would like this SL better if:

1.  It was made clear to the viewers Peter was guilty of a lot of corruption, but not in this instance.  If they were going to have Jason investigate, actually have him investigate, turn up all sorts of evidence of wrong doing on Peter's part, but not find anything that exonerates him (like a lab tech who has screwed up numerous cases) in this instance, but somehow reveal to the viewers Peter didn't do this, but he goes to prison anyway.

2.  When Jason asked Alicia what she wants, she said Will, but it's to late, and I'm not going to waste anymore time.  That's why I'm divorcing Peter.

I liked Diane and Kurt when they got together because they were two mature adults who enjoyed being together, who disagreed about some things, but they agreed to not let their differences over shadow the good times they had together.

[doodlebug]

13 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

It's the second to last episode, so I'm going to kind of throw away the 'rules' and I apologize up front for that.

1)  Why did Josh Charles want to leave the show after 5 years?
2)  What is Cary's job now?
3)  I'm sorry, but I've NEVER been a fan of Peter and Alicia's chemistry!  I loved Willicia's though.  I think it might be Noth, then again it might also be Marguiles.  I'm a big fan of SATC and Noth rarely did anything for me there, either.
4)  I like to see differing opinions on the Diane/Kurt relationship.  To be honest, I don't know if I still really love them as a couple.  I think I'm just such a big fan of Gary Cole and Christine Baranski's acting around him.  He's a weak and weird character though - not sure if I get it or am supposed to like it.  I have to admit it's very interesting how Diane manipulates him and uses him for her own purposes.  It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last, LOL.

This show used to be very good.  I remember when I devoured the first season.  And Kalinda and Eli were such revelations, so exciting and interesting and cool.   I'll miss you guys when it is over, but I won't miss Alicia.

1. Josh Charles left because he wanted to do other things.  He said he didn't want to keep playing the same character for years to come, he wanted to do something new.  Obviously, there could be other reasons that we haven't been told.

2. We don't know what Cary is doing, he quit working at Lockhart, Agos; but we haven't been told what his next move will be, other than testifying in Peter's trial.  Presumably, since he was a partner, he got a lump sum buyout.  If I'm not mistaken, the last time Alicia left a firm, she got $250,000 and complained bitterly that it wasn't enough to pay her cost of living.  However, Cary seems to have a more realistic view of the world and life in general and I suspect he could last a long time with that kind of dough.

Edited May 3, 2016 by doodlebug

[Kathyk1024]

Is it possible to be two mature adults who enjoy one another but have a totally different world view?  Could I live with Ted Cruz?  For the sake of the show, I suspend reality.  In the real world I don't really think it's possible and that's why two careers in two locales may have been good for their marriage.

[doodlebug]

19 minutes ago, Kathyk1024 said:

Is it possible to be two mature adults who enjoy one another but have a totally different world view?  Could I live with Ted Cruz?  For the sake of the show, I suspend reality.  In the real world I don't really think it's possible and that's why two careers in two locales may have been good for their marriage.

I don't think it's so much world view as it is lifestyle.  For example, Diane and Kurt have very different POV when it comes to politics, etc.  However, they enjoy being together and like and appreciate their differences.  Diane went hunting with Kurt and his friends and was a good sport about it and had a good time.  Kurt has hung around and attended social events with Diane (such as Jackie's engagement party) and managed to make small talk and, as we saw then, stay away from arguing with her more politically liberal friends. They work because they put in the effort.

As for Alicia and Jason, however, there is no indication that they have anything in common other than sex.  He doesn't like to stay in one place long, he apparently has no close family, let alone kids.  Alicia has a career which she values which requires her to be rooted in one area, she's got kids, a mother and a brother in the area with whom she interacts regularly.  I don't get the impression that either one of them plans to put in any effort whatsoever to accommodate the other's lifestyle which is why it would be ridiculous for them to be together over the long haul.  I know several couples who have had successful longterm relationships while one traveled extensively for work and the other stayed at home; but it was something they both wanted.  I cannot picture Alicia being ok with living and working in a different city than her partner; nor is she the sort to appreciate a semi-nomadic life with a guy who picks up stakes and moves every couple of years.

Edited May 3, 2016 by doodlebug

[Cynna]

15 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

3)  I'm sorry, but I've NEVER been a fan of Peter and Alicia's chemistry!  I loved Willicia's though.  I think it might be Noth, then again it might also be Marguiles.  I'm a big fan of SATC and Noth rarely did anything for me there, either.

I had to think about this, and realized: I've never thought they had any sort of chemistry or energy together...until the second half of this season. And it's not that they changed, but that there is so little energy between characters now, mostly because of cast changes and because Alicia is in almost every scene. I think they've done a good job of getting rid of many characters and interactions that might stand out in front of Marguilies. Sad to see. :/

[yb125]

16 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

I think they said 8 months before.

I have no idea if they would let his time count is time served. It sounds sort of fair, but I'm guessing not. If a person is in prison while waiting for their trial, gets found not guilty, then is later re-tried and found guilty, I don't think the previous pre-trial time counts. That seems kind of comparable.

I'm surprised that there wouldn't be more media at the trial for a sitting governor. I feel like the grand jury trial went on longer and got more attention. 

It might vary from state to state, but in California you do get credit for pre-trail time spent in jail if found not guilty. I am not sure about time spend after a verdict gets over turned it would see to be the same but I know you only get money from the state if you prove you were innocent. 

[HawaiiTVGuy]

On 5/2/2016 at 11:16 PM, AudienceofOne said:

 

 

Not stupid at all. Peter denied it, which means the defence can't use it. So the jury is left with the general impression of Peter's wrongdoing without anything the defence can use against him. It was a masterstroke.

 

It was stupid because now he brings up bad acts of his own witness that brings his own witnesses', pretty much his entire case, credibility into question.  He had a lot of ammunition to go after Peter in terms of bad acts and lying, bringing up something that had never been proferred that destroys his own witnesses' credibility was stupid.  Before bringing it up, all that was known to the jury was that Geneva Pine was a loyal long-time prosecutor who had some issues with how Peter handled that case, and no potential axe to grind.  Remember, the prosecutor is the one who needs the case to be as simple as possible, even one juror being confused and uncertain pretty much is a win for the defense.  

Quote

The show has generally been pretty accurate on how the law works, but this was silly. When Mr. Schu said he had a secret witness IN A CRIMINAL CASE, I really wish Alicia had gone all Mona Lisa Vito on him and pointed out you an't have secret witnesses or evidence..."it's called discovery dickhead". On top of that, do they have any actual evidence or just circumstantial evidence like "why else would he have made Geneva Pine follow the law on Miranda warnings"?.

First thing that I thought when he mentioned a "surprise witness".  I was like, how exactly are you getting around discovery rules to have any "surprise" witness moron?  And seriously, like he can't claim not knowing she existed before now.

And the defense position was that Peter was now micro-managing as the new "standard" for the State's Attorney Office to clean up the cases, were there no other murders for Peter to potentially micro-manage?  This would have been easy to present, see how he acted in other cases.  Did he go to micro-manage other cases?  If yes, helps the defense, if no, then it is a huge rebuttal for the prosecution and pretty much sinks Peter.

I personally don't think Geneva slept with Peter, it is quite possible all those affidavits from co-workers of a Geneva and Peter relationship, was actually a Geneva and corrupt cop relationship.

On 5/2/2016 at 3:26 AM, AriAu said:

 

I don';t get why everyone thinks Cary was a standup guy when he intentionally slipped and thru Peter's name in there instead of the other guy.

I actually thought this was a positive thing for the defense.  To kind of make him look like he had an axe to grind with Peter and color his testimony, which was kind of vanilla I felt.

[Noreaster]

Regarding Josh Charles, he originally signed a 4-year contract with the show (instead of the typical 6-year contract that most regulars sign) because he didn't want to be tied down that long.  According to various interviews, Julianna Margulies played a big part in convincing JC to stay on for another 15 episodes.  

On 5/2/2016 at 10:39 AM, MakeMeLaugh said:

And recruiting another female attorney, as if most of their clients won't be fleeing from the new all-female law firm, LegalVaginas-R-Us! is just soooo insulting in this day and age. 

A female-dominated firm is insulting?  As opposed to the heavily male-dominated environment that exists in real life?

[Tetraneutron]

There's a difference between a firm that's all men and a firm that was explicitly designed to be all men. If someone tried to brand their law firm by being known as the place that only has male partners, they'd face a huge backlash, and possibly a lawsuit. Similarly, if the firm ended up being Diane, Alicia, and Elspeth Tascioni as named partners, but no one in the show ever made reference to gender, no one would have a problem with that either. 

It's the idea that branding yourself as a majority (or all) female-partnered firm would be seen as an advantage in the marketplace. It wouldn't. At best it would be seen as some antiquated 70s relic cartoon of feminism, like the Women and Women First bookstore in Portlandia. At worst it would be a walking discrimination lawsuit. No one would go to a firm that specifically and publicly made a point of excluding 50% of the population for partnerships. 

[AudienceofOne]

I keep seeing this argument and it makes no sense. You know what male lawyers will do? Go to a law firm that privileges men for promotion. Otherwise known as every other law firm in the world. That gives you 50% of the population stuck in law firms where they can't get promoted because they don't have a dick. All of them would want to work here.

Meanwhile, other law firms don't have to rebrand themselves as only having male partners. Because they mostly already do only have male partners. That's the point.

I have zero time for the ridiculous argument that equality somehow happened in 1972 and so therefore all the discrimination and bias and misogynism is just "normal". Therefore there's no need for feminism anymore because patriarchy is clearly natural. Men are the partners in these firms because men are just better. We know this because there's a meritocracy now! Obvs!

As I've said before, I have no problem with the concept of a female-partner firm. I do have a problem with Dianne deciding to do it to the firm she's in. It would have made more sense if she and Alicia went and did it with a new start-up.

Edited May 4, 2016 by AudienceofOne

[MakeMeLaugh]

1 hour ago, Noreaster said:

Regarding Josh Charles, he originally signed a 4-year contract with the show (instead of the typical 6-year contract that most regulars sign) because he didn't want to be tied down that long.  According to various interviews, Julianna Margulies played a big part in convincing JC to stay on for another 15 episodes.  

A female-dominated firm is insulting?  As opposed to the heavily male-dominated environment that exists in real life?

I misedited my post and garbled my meaning--but this show's subplot of changing an existing supposedly top general corporate law firm into an all-women enterprise is insulting to feminism in my opinion. And would be economical suicide. Again--In my opinion.  But it's just drama on a stupid show or we'd see it happening all the time in real life if it were a good idea.

Edited May 4, 2016 by MakeMeLaugh

[Noreaster]

I also don't think it makes business sense to completely rebrand a large established firm as a women-led firm (it made more sense when Diane wanted to partner with Alicia and start up a new firm shortly after Will died). But to say it's insulting seems out of place in a world that remains so incredibly male-dominated. It suggests that women are just not as good as men. It doesn't recognize that gender biases are still prevalent in the workplace. Just a few days ago, The New York Times had an article discussing this issue in the advertising industry.

I think the show has done a better job with this issue in the past.  Diane has been shown on multiple occasions in the earlier seasons wanting to mentor and promote other women.  Earlier this season, when the firm was interviewing candidates, the male partners clearly favored those who were most like them (white, highly-educated males) and were quick to disregard the African-American female candidate.  I think the show exaggerated the interviews (Howard Lyman's and David Lee's approaches), but contrasting Cary's with Diane's thoughts was pretty realistic. Cary thought the white male candidates brought more to the table while Diane felt the female candidate would be a valuable contributor to the firm.  Who's right?  No right or wrong answer.  But when you have an industry that's mostly comprised of one group, we're going to see the industry continue to favor that one group.  There needs to be a deliberate attempt to increase the presence and profile of underrepresented groups. Insulting?  I don't think so.  

Edited May 4, 2016 by Noreaster

[MakeMeLaugh]

Pretty sure we can all have opinions here. I'll honor yours. Bowing out of the Good Wife forums--bye Show!

[ChocButterfly]

On 5/2/2016 at 11:29 AM, MissLucas said:

The construction-gone-wrong-plot was one of these ridiculous plots TGW seems to be fond of yet always make me think the show is suffering from an identity crisis and thinks it's Ally McBeal.

It was stupid. The stupidest plot I have ever seen. Like these workers showed up and started breaking walls without first talking with anyone in charge, anyone?? Or that they didn't  have a blueprint whatsoever? So they just came and demolished everything around, no verifying, no questions asked? In an entire firm where people where working?? Or that they started breaking stuff with people inside the room?? I come from a country where there is not a lot of order and procedure and not even here have I ever seen construction workers just casually starting to demolish a wall without even asking people working inside the room to step out. It's ludicrous!

ETA: I hope David Lee wins the suit against Diane for discrimination. Not that I think he can sue, since he's a partner and he did agree to the female partners law firm, so I have no idea what he's complaining about! But what Diane is doing is also one of the stupidest plots ever!

Edited May 4, 2016 by ChocButterfly

[photo fox]

11 hours ago, AudienceofOne said:

As I've said before, I have no problem with the concept of a female-partner firm. I do have a problem with Dianne deciding to do it to the firm she's in. It would have made more sense if she and Alicia went and did it with a new start-up.

This is where I am as well.  I have no problem with Diane wanting to run a women-led firm - even if I think it's very OOC for Diane, who has always worked best with men, IMO - but I do have a problem with her joining an established firm and then pushing out the male partners.  She and Alicia are supposedly two of the biggest names in Chicagoland law... why not just start something new?

As for the desirability of a female-led firm, I get it.  As a woman who doesn't "lawyer" often, if I found myself needing legal representation, I would lean toward a female attorney.  At a stressful time, the last thing I want to worry about is getting talked down to like "the little woman".  NOT saying that all male lawyers would do so - obviously - but the worry would be there.  I've just experienced that enough in my life, from car salesmen to roofers to bankers, to think it's not likely to happen again.  I don't think it's malicious, or probably even conscious on their parts, but it definitely happens.  Often.

That said, if I knew a male lawyer or met with a male lawyer, and I was comfortable with them, I wouldn't trade them in for a woman.  It's about my comfort level during a vulnerable situation, not empowering other women or some such thing (though I respect people who would have that reason).

[vibeology]

The woman-led firm is most problematic because Diane is trying to carve it out of something that already exists. She had two male named partners that she's had to deal with to start plus many other partners who probably aren't too impressed. If you're a male associate or junior partner and the firm switches to female-led that means your ability to advance has just changed. I can't see many men willing to stick around for that and with the partners, every single one who leaves would need to be bought out. Financially it doesn't work. Who would have the cash flow to pull that off and expand at the same time?

If the show had left Alicia and Lucca working on their own and Diane had come to Alicia to turn that little partnership into a new female led firm and brought some clients and lawyers with her, this would work. If Cary had left, David Lee been booted for the fraud he committed and Howard retired to be with Jackie and Diane had a chance to organically bring on only female named partners and slowly shifted the firm in that direction, maybe I'd believe it. But what I don't believe is forcibly and immediately changing the firm because I just think it would be too expensive to pull off.

Edited May 4, 2016 by vibeology

[Kathyk1024]

I didn't watch well this year so can you fill me in.  Did they address Oliver Platt?  Did he fire them already?  Didn't he not want Alicia because of the scandal?

Isn't he a whale with huge billables?

[FlyingDuchess]

On May 3, 2016 at 0:40 AM, AudienceofOne said:

I never got the impression we were supposed to think Peter was having an affair with Geneva. We were supposed to think people believed he was having an affair with Geneva. They're two different things. The entire point of this plotline (and this series when it remembers it) is that the perception of wrongdoing is more important than actual wrongdoing, which is why this faux affair has been brought up. Peter, we know, has fucked half the city. But he's being judged for the half he hasn't fucked. He's been corrupt on many occassions. But he's being judged for a time he wasn't. That's the point.

Exactly! I don't see this accusation as a retcon, or the writers forgetting about the characters' previous interactions. If anything, I think the writers are assuming we're smart enough to recognize that it's clearly a false accusation without having to confirm that within the narrative of this episode. Ditto with Marilyn Garbanza.

I also think that Alicia's reaction to the accusation was unusual (for her), in that she DIDN'T react from a place of emotion. If we think back to prior revelations -- the prostitutes, Kalinda, even Ramona -- Alicia was clearly rattled emotionally by them. (By the time she confronted Peter about Ramona she'd decided to make it all about her campaign, but watch the scene where she opens the box with the photos of Peter and Ramona together -- she's clearly upset, and I think it's about more than optics at a gut level.)  But the accusation regarding Geneva is coming at a completely different time -- Alicia's convinced herself she's done with the marriage, and she has Jason, so of course she doesn't care.  That or, like me, she knows that it is bullshit anyway.

[Tetraneutron]

Exactly. The show actually did show to female attorneys deciding to start their own firm in the past: in season 5 when Elspeth Tascioni and Reina Hecht decided to create a new firm together. And we never had this discussion on the board about whether it was realistic. Because it was. There was nothing wrong with that. But that's different that what we're seeing here: the female established named partner of a big successful law firm deciding to rebrand herself in that way. And her big clients like Google would be fine with it. We're saying it makes no sense to move from a big regular firm to a niche firm, all the while pretending that being woman-only would be positive branding and help you stand out in the marketplace, and attract the same sorts of clients Lockhart Gardner Agos Lee whoever got. 

11 hours ago, AudienceofOne said:

I keep seeing this argument and it makes no sense. You know what male lawyers will do? Go to a law firm that privileges men for promotion. Otherwise known as every other law firm in the world. That gives you 50% of the population stuck in law firms where they can't get promoted because they don't have a dick. All of them would want to work here.

Meanwhile, other law firms don't have to rebrand themselves as only having male partners. Because they mostly already do only have male partners. That's the point.

Exactly. But, as we're saying, this isn't a case of Diane deciding to start a new firm after Lee and Canning kicked her out and bringing on Alicia as a partner. Other law firms may be institutionally sexist, but they would never, ever brag about their sexism as a branding strategy. That's the difference. Diane isn't using her power as a named partner to find and promote qualified women who've hit a glass ceiling at other places. She would be in an ideal position to do that, but it never came up.

[Noreaster]

Overall, I thought this was a really good episode.  I always enjoy the Alicia/Peter interactions.  Peter's testimony on the stand reminded me how the character seemed intent on being a good ethical SA when he was re-elected.  I had forgotten about the Geneva Pine history (including the racial bias accusations) and wish the show refreshed our memory on that.  It would have helped viewers better understand why she has such a negative view of Peter and how she might have believed that Peter sabotaged the Garber case.  

Cary's testimony was a bit of a letdown.  Why was everyone so worried about him testifying?  From Cary's initial reactions upon receiving the subpoena, to him hiring Louis Canning, to Canning trying to keep Cary off the stand...there was an awful amount of hype around Cary's role. What was the point?  Assuming Cary was telling the truth, his testimony didn't really do much to hurt or help Peter.  Maybe the writers originally intended to take the Cary testimony a different way and make it more damaging?

The case against Peter seems really weak to me.  It's hard to argue that Peter is not telling the truth when he had a third party evaluate the evidence.  If he wanted to just lose the evidence, wouldn't he just have gotten rid of it to begin with instead of going to Kurt?

[Noreaster]

8 minutes ago, Tetraneutron said:

Exactly. The show actually did show to female attorneys deciding to start their own firm in the past: in season 5 when Elspeth Tascioni and Reina Hecht decided to create a new firm together. And we never had this discussion on the board about whether it was realistic. Because it was. There was nothing wrong with that. But that's different that what we're seeing here: the female established named partner of a big successful law firm deciding to rebrand herself in that way. And her big clients like Google would be fine with it. We're saying it makes no sense to move from a big regular firm to a niche firm, all the while pretending that being woman-only would be positive branding and help you stand out in the marketplace, and attract the same sorts of clients Lockhart Gardner Agos Lee whoever got. 

Exactly. But, as we're saying, this isn't a case of Diane deciding to start a new firm after Lee and Canning kicked her out and bringing on Alicia as a partner. Other law firms may be institutionally sexist, but they would never, ever brag about their sexism as a branding strategy. That's the difference. Diane isn't using her power as a named partner to find and promote qualified women who've hit a glass ceiling at other places. She would be in an ideal position to do that, but it never came up.

I don't know.  Reading the comments on this thread, it seems like most everyone is in agreement that it doesn't make sense for Diane to rebrand this large firm.  Instead the debate is about the female-led firm concept in general. All the ugh, why would anyone want to form an all-female firm?  All the clients would leave!  Males are being discriminated against!  How unfair!  It's insulting to feminism to want to promote other women!

[Klapaucius]

Quote

It's insulting to feminism to want to promote other women!

It's not an insult to feminism to want to promote other women. But it's an insult to it to suggest  that would be done getting rid of the all male partners just because they're male even when they didn't deserve it. The way that storyline was written is just painful to watch.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Klapaucius

[Noreaster]

Right, this current storyline is just poorly written.  Recall the whole notion of going with a female-led firm this season is driven by Diane's belief that David Lee and Cary were in cahoots to drive her out of the firm.  So it was self-preservation on her part.  She really wanted to get those two out and secure her own position at the head of the firm.  It's not really about getting rid of all the male name partners because they're male. But Diane has somehow combined this objective with her own previously stated desire (expressed in earlier seasons) to help promote women.  There's this weird muddling of her motivations.

Meanwhile, like pretty much everyone seems to agree here, from a business standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to do this rebranding.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Noreaster

[Klapaucius]

29 minutes ago, Noreaster said:

Right, this current storyline is just poorly written.  Recall the whole notion of going with a female-led firm this season is driven by Diane's belief that David Lee and Cary were in cahoots to drive her out of the firm.  So it was self-preservation on her part.  She really wanted to get those two out and secure her own position at the head of the firm.  It's not really about getting rid of all the male name partners because they're male. But Diane has somehow combined this objective with her own previously stated desire (expressed in earlier seasons) to help promote women.  There's this weird muddling of her motivations.

Meanwhile, like pretty much everyone seems to agree here, from a business standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to do this rebranding.

But David and Cary didn't want to drive her out. They were worry she wanted to drive them out. So even that thing couldn't have given the character strong motivations to do what she did. If Diane wanted a different firm, if she wanted new partners, well, It would have made sense for Diane, and not for Cary, to quit the firm and create a new one which suited her idea of firm. Instead we had that carnage which ruined relationships and characters, added a splash of injustice to entire thing and made no sense anyway.

[Bunnyhop]

I have to say this before the series finale.  I think that Diane Lockhart is the best dressed female character on television.  At least in my TV universe.  Her wardrobe perfectly reflects her age and her position in life.  So many other women on TV look as though every single seam is going to pop at any moment.  You know their clothes are expensive, but they still manage to look cheap.  She doesn't come to the office showing her cleavage or sporting a thigh high slit in her skirt.  Diane always actually looked comfortable in her clothes, and still always looked like a million bucks.  Diane is what I think of when Project Runway does those awful  "office wear/working woman" challenges and the judges complain that when a designer sends something that isn't a party dress down the runway.  Having Christine Baranski wearing the clothes is a plus, of course.  But whomever did her wardrobe nailed it every week.  Just had to get that said!

[Dowel Jones]

My first reaction to the trial was, That was it? That's all the witnesses and evidence either side produced?  Seemed rather inconsequential given all the grand jury time that was shown on previous episodes.

[Noreaster]

7 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

But David and Cary didn't want to drive her out. They were worry she wanted to drive them out. So even that thing couldn't have given the character strong motivations to do what she did. If Diane wanted a different firm, if she wanted new partners, well, It would have made sense for Diane, and not for Cary, to quit the firm and create a new one which suited her idea of firm. Instead we had that carnage which ruined relationships and characters, added a splash of injustice to entire thing and made no sense anyway.

If we're talking about motivations, it's about what Diane believes to be true.  Not what David Lee and Cary were actually doing (which ended up being not wanting to drive Diane out, but instead making the false assumption that Diane actually wanted to drive them out first...which was stupidly based on something that wasn't a big deal...an industry publication wanting to highlight the female partners in a photo shoot.  And then David Lee and Cary actually tried to make it seem to Diane that they were indeed in cahoots by chatting in a conspiratorial manner in David Lee's office in plain sight of Diane...god, I can't believe I just typed this out...all of it is so dumb).  Again, I agree the female-led firm idea really doesn't make sense in this context but this is what the writers came up with.  And Diane made it explicit in a conversation with Alicia that she wouldn't be doing any of this if she didn't think David Lee and Cary were conspiring against her.    

Edited May 5, 2016 by Noreaster

[Klapaucius]

Quote

Again, I agree the female-led firm idea really doesn't make sense in this context but this is what the writers came up with.  And Diane made it explicit in a conversation with Alicia that she wouldn't be doing any of this if she didn't think David Lee and Cary were conspiring against her.    

And that's still a tepid motivation to take a bussiness decision which makes no sense from a business standpoint.

Also they should have left Cary out of that mess. Nothing of what Cary did or thought justifies, in my book, the writers' decision to turn him into collateral damage in Diane's quest for the perfect firm.He didn't deserve to be treated like that, from a bussines standpoint and from a personal standpoint. If they wanted an all female firm in the end they should have just had Cary quitting for other professional and personal reasons (and after the trial and Kalinda's exit they had penty of options to do it). Suggesting that he was an expendable element in the show's power play (and mostly suggesting he wasn't good enough for anything he fought for in the previous seasons) wasn't a good idea.

[Noreaster]

Well yeah, as I said, poor writing.  Anyway, the point is let's not make this plot line about why female-led firms are a bad concept in general.  Cary wasn't pushed out of the firm because he was male but because of the silly misunderstanding/paranoia/sitcomish stuff (which are out of character for both Diane and Cary, maybe not so much for David Lee).  

[needschocolate]

On 5/4/2016 at 6:42 AM, ChocButterfly said:

It was stupid. The stupidest plot I have ever seen. Like these workers showed up and started breaking walls without first talking with anyone in charge, anyone?? Or that they didn't  have a blueprint whatsoever? So they just came and demolished everything around, no verifying, no questions asked? In an entire firm where people where working?? Or that they started breaking stuff with people inside the room?? I come from a country where there is not a lot of order and procedure and not even here have I ever seen construction workers just casually starting to demolish a wall without even asking people working inside the room to step out. It's ludicrous!

 

More stupidity - 

They are knocking holes into a wall (and I don't think that is really how someone goes about taking down a wall) and yet the debris is falling from the ceiling.

They are left with a big, gaping hole in their ceiling - so big they can see that the 29th floor is empty.  What sort of project did the 18th floor people have in mind that they needed to have a hole in their ceiling.  I know Diane decide to put in a staircase, but whey wouldn't they just take the elevators?

They were all relieved that the firms insurance would cover it.  But the firm doesn't need to cover it, the company doing the demo needs to have insurance to cover it.

David Lee, high-powdered attorney,  has nothing better to do with his workday than to listen to music really loudly.  and his music was apparently so loud that no one else in the firm could hear the workmen banging away, except for the two that were in the same room as the workmen.  

This was another example of the writers trying to add levity with screwball/slapstick comedy.  Oh the wacky things that happen a the firm, the campaign office, Alicia's apartment, etc.  When Peter was arrested, I half expected the Keystone Cops to show up.  The comedy would be funnier if the lack of realism wasn't so distractingly obvious - and if it weren't the same lame jokes being replayed - "Oh, Hardy-har-har, there goes Eli again, standing on something so he can listen through a vent!" "Oh, tee-hee-hee, someone went to the wrong floor and look what havoc it creates!"  "Oh, guffaw, the desk is too big for the office!"

[dahling]

Another thing that was weird: In one scene, Diane is in court defending the Governor. The next she's wooing some female attorney. The next she's redesigning the hardy-har-har destroyed office.  All apparently on the same day.  Diane apparently, in addition to possessing the universe's secrets of How To Dress Over 50, is also able to leap seamlessly between dimensions and do all things at all times. 

[FlyingDuchess]

My legal nitpick:

Fox is an AUSA (i.e., a federal prosecutor). Last time I checked, Cuesta was a state court judge. Unless Cuesta has been nominated to the federal bench, or Fox is acting as a special prosector for the state, this seems amiss to me.

[TigerLynx]

Diane trying to attract more female attorneys to the firm would make more sense if she was marketing it as there is no glass ceiling at Lockhart, Gardner, Florrick, Aggos, Lee, Canning, the man on the moon, etc.  Diane has had the kind of career female and male attorneys would kill to have.  She has been a name partner at one of the top three firms in the state for years.  Diane has had top billing for years.  She has prestige, brings in big clients and money.  Of course, this is another reason why the musical law firms was so stupid.  David Lee is a sexist jerk, Canning is a jerk, Will skated on the ethics edge a few times, but they all cared about the bottom line.  Law firm partners don't try to push out a rainmaker like Diane.  Cary and Alicia leaving Lockhart Gardner made sense because they were trying to start something of their own.  At this point though, getting any good attorney to join the firm would be almost impossible.  Attorneys don't want to join a law firm that changes names and partners every two months.

Speaking of stupid and ridiculous, the case against Peter has no teeth.  There is this little thing called reasonable doubt, and this case is so thin, there is a truckload of reasonable doubt all over the place.  Bringing down a corrupt politician would be good for a prosecutors career, but before they would try to take on a sitting governor, they would make sure they had an airtight case.

Also, what happened to the savvy political game players Eli and Peter used to be.  When Eli was hired to rehab Peter's career and image, he had all sorts of contacts and power.  Peter managed to get the NSA to stop the wire taps the first time around by making compromising phone calls to people he knew would pull the plug ASAP.  Now everyone and their dog (literally) runs circles around them.

Edited May 6, 2016 by TigerLynx

[Beth64]

God help me.  I love Peter Florrick.

[albaniantv]

Maybe we weren't supposed to take the demolition seriously -- could be the Kings knocking down the set with their words, an episode before the crew does it for real!

This show certainly did entertain for a long time. For me, the weariness set in after Will was killed. Surely the well oiled inter-workings between the lawyers, judges, arch criminals and other Chicago furniture could have survived the loss of one significant character. But somehow it didn't, really.

It's as though Will was more of a keystone with Alicia, Diane and Kalinda all primarily interacting with and dependent on him. Cary and Eli both seemed lost for the last few years, each consigned to a small hell of his own -- Cary on a repeat cycle trying to stay out of prison and away from drug kings, Eli stuck in a micro office with a macro boss.

Alicia's boyfriends were all pretty lackluster until Jason: he lacks way more than luster. He looks like he needs a really hot shower with a lot of soap, followed by a close shave, haircut, pedicure and manicure.

Roles for the kids were equally clumsy -- they weren't believable as the office tech wiz or the lawyer understudy. Even Alicia's mother and brother started to act like they were lost characters from a sitcom. Look --the gay brother and the drunk mother are doing a soft shoe right into the wedding cake. Cake? Oh right, the toxic mother in law is about to live happily ever after.

So, yes, it's time to close this set.

Glad to see Archie Panjabi landed on her feet from what must have been an icy ejection.

[jjj]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 6:42 AM, ChocButterfly said:

It was stupid. The stupidest plot I have ever seen. Like these workers showed up and started breaking walls without first talking with anyone in charge, anyone?? Or that they didn't  have a blueprint whatsoever? So they just came and demolished everything around, no verifying, no questions asked?

That was so ridiculous!  If random men in hard hats walked into a room where I was working and started demolition, I would be screaming murder to someone.  No one else in the office noticed this?  Is there no office manager???  Plus not covering/protecting the books and video screen would never happen in real life. 

And when Lucca said "I called the insurance company, and we're covered" -- what the hell?  It was not the law firm that was liable!  That construction firm better have some deep insurance!  Plus, of all the seasoned attorneys in the firm, why would then call in Lucca to be second to Diane?  She was just in an office pod a week or two ago!

Finally, why did the prosecutor keep coming to Alicia with the deals?  She is neither the defendant nor the attorney in the case, just the hand-holder-in-chief.  He had no business taking the deals to anyone except Diane. 

They are just making us *want* the show to end.