S01.E01: The Necklace

[green]

7 hours ago, shrewd.buddha said:

Maybe they should have just named this show "Rigged" , because, like most shows about lawyers, it turns the legal system into a game where winning at all costs is the only thing that matters.

And when will we see Dr. Bull doing his best work for a client who is most likely guilty? (OJ's dream team) That's usually the rich type of client who can afford these type of expensive services, right? 

It was watchable, but I was turned off by almost every character, including Bull and his overly cocky team of jury manipulators. 

Decided to go fiction watching last night instead of watch the ball game.  Geez this show was terribly written, premise horrible and just plain bad.  And what Shrewd Buddha said above about it.

There is an innate sense of justice and fair play in most of us.  This fictional corp is opposite world from it upholding the rich and their already rigged legal (not justice) system and screwing over the poor who can't afford them.  Hacking our lives so to make "clones" of each and every one of us when needed because we all can somehow be "mirrored" 100% so have no real value in and of ourselves.  Therefore we are just pawns for the rich to play with.

If the pilot was about a maverick who broke away from this "Evil Corp" (tm Mr Robot) to fight against it using it's own evil methods for good it would be a better show.  But still not a good show because these are bad methods that will always skew justice into gaming the system more than it already is and it is already approaching 100% levels of same. 

Hated how the main target juror was emotionally "used" and "manipulated" to use her past pain to get the results Evil Corp wanted.  There was some throw away line that this would in the end help her with her pain.  Bulls**t (*cough*).  Who made Evil Corp God?  (Show called "Bull" is well named at least, heh).

And terrible writing. The "non-Hollywood sexy looking" woman lawyer was always going to be the main lawyer at the end.  You knew that 5 minutes into the show.  A high priced lawyer would know all the tricks Evil Corp was using already.  No dog and pony show on how the main character decided the girl's mother was the murderer because it was her mother's necklace or why he hitches rides along with cops for arrests other than he is one special little snowflake isn't he.  What was the point of any of this?

Two thumbs and 4 bull hooves down from me.  Hope it gets cancelled right away but the lead actor's fame from NCIS will keep it limping along way too long.

Edited September 21, 2016 by green

[orza]

9 minutes ago, gazebo said:

I'm still figuring out how Bull knew it was the rich girl's mom who killed Elyssa.  I know Bull noted the amethyst necklace on the dead girl's neck in one of the pictures but how did he know the rich girl's mom still have it?

After the verdict was announced Bull observed the meaningful looks between his client and the older man, as well as the wife's reaction. Apparently, Bull is really good at reading people and figured it out based on facial expressions, body language as well as his earlier interactions with the family.

[retired watcher]

8 hours ago, rhys said:

I'm annoyed beyond reason that Dr Phil thinks MW resembles him. Just no.

Dr. Phil knows he looks nothing like MW. That was his way of joking. He has made many remarks over the years that he is not good looking.

[ParadoxLost]

I didn't make it past 15 minutes.  Dr Phi has a writer credit on the first episode.  I think I'll give it a few weeks to shake that off and see if it settles into something watchable.

[GHScorpiosRule]

28 minutes ago, retired watcher said:

Dr. Phil knows he looks nothing like MW. That was his way of joking. He has made many remarks over the years that he is not good looking.

Except when shows he goes on pull up his high school(?) college (?) football pictures and the women swoon (GAG) over it and then most recently on The View, he admitted Michael does look like him in his younger days, which, no you self-absorbed hack, he does NOT.

7 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

I didn't make it past 15 minutes.  Dr Phi has a writer credit on the first episode.  I think I'll give it a few weeks to shake that off and see if it settles into something watchable.

UGH. I didn't even catch that-actually I missed the credits until I realized this show wasn't going to have music themed opening credits, and I guess I looked away when they showed the guest stars, produced by, written by, and directed by credits.

[ParadoxLost]

10 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

UGH. I didn't even catch that-actually I missed the credits until I realized this show wasn't going to have music themed opening credits, and I guess I looked away when they showed the guest stars, produced by, written by, and directed by credits.

I saw it mentioned in the pilot announcement so that was my deciding factor in picking Scream Queens to watch last night.  I'm not overly confident that it will get better because Phil has one of his sons installed as a producer.  So I don't think Phil will be hands off after the pilot.

I'm going to give it another shot after the actual showrunner settles in a bit to see if he can de-Phil it a bit.  If it lasts that long.  I wonder how much ratings will hold next week.

[JessDVD]

Well - I would probably watch MW read the phone book (adding him to an elite list that's primarily populated by Tom Hanks and Harrison Ford), so it had me from there. I have no opinions about Dr. Phil so I'm coming at it with, is the show interesting - and Mr. DVD and I both felt that it was an interesting take on the crime procedural and we'll give it a few episodes, at least. We were slightly weirded out by all the profiling but are up for giving it a chance as long as it's on.

[Showthyme]

I wonder if I would like it more if I didn't know that it was a take on Dr. Phil's role as a jury consultant. The character on this show is all ego which is a turn off.

I like the concept of the show but the actors/characters seem off. They just don't seem to mesh. So far, I only like the character who is dressing the defendant for the jury. I can't buy what this show is selling in terms of being able to learn everything about everyone with just a few online clicks. Let's a least make TAC earn their fee by making information hard to come by.

Then, what is up with Dr. Bull reaching out to the jury member at the end of the show? That scene was unnecessary since we learned everything that we needed to know about the jury right from the beginning.

The concept is good but I think that they threw everything into it and it just felt busy and chaotic. I hope they tone it down. Way down. 

How do you catch a cold? I promise you that I will hate any attorney that presents that question and I will hold it against him. 

[torqy]

12 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Agreed.  The wall of monitors and what information that could find out about each person creeped me out as well.

 

I am not on Facebook (or LinkedIn) but am told by friends who are, that most of what Bull's crew learned about people can be readily gleaned from The Facebook (tm Provenza) or Google searches.

This looks like a mashup of Lie to Me and a film from 2003 with Gene Hackman called Runaway Jury.

Lots of H!ITG's here. No one else watched the first season of Night Shift? Freddy Rodriguez was amusing playing the stand-in for James Earl Jones-Lite.

[brgjoe]

I am glad someone else mentioned that meeting between Dr. Bull and that jury member towards the end of the episode.  That was basically my "WTF?" moment from that show.  I thought I had missed something.  Just didn't see why they decided to put that scene in there.  Granted, I was on a jury once and me as a jury member wished I could have talked with both the prosecutor and the defense attorney.  Just seemed a bit odd as to why Dr. Bull felt he needed to go over and chat on the street with that jury member.  Hope that doesn't become a thing in this show as well.

And MW's vocal delivery didn't really bother me.  I felt he would probably have a different sort of manner than his DiNozzo character did. 

[Real4real]

I think maybe I have watched too much Law and Order!  I was totally with the prosecution on identifying the gay lover--I'm supposed to believe it's true just because the defendant says so?  Sorry, too convenient!  

And what possible reason would the police have to show up at the real perp's house?  Because the jury consultant saw a meaningful look between the defendant and the husband?  How does that lead to the wife?  Her apparent motive was to clear the deck (literally in this case) for her daughter to have a relationship with the defendant.  Is she going to kill her husband next?  The boy is still not going to choose her daughter if he is really gay.  It doesn't make sense to me.  Maybe the police can question the family in their search for the truth, but without the necklace or some kind of confession, I can't see them making a case.  Where is probable cause to search for the necklace?  

Well, I'm thinking way too hard about this!  I guess I just like to have the bad guys caught at the end, but it has to make sense!

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, I saw a number of Law & Order mothership alumni in this. At least three: Fred Weller, the actor who played the defense attorney, and gay husband of the killer.

[shrewd.buddha]

11 hours ago, Showthyme said:

The concept is good but I think that they threw everything into it and it just felt busy and chaotic.

For me, it's actually the concept of the show that will probably push me away. The very opening of the show appears to be saying that the American justice system is a joke and you can buy the verdict of your choice  ... if you have the money. 
This episode would have been completely different (maybe more believable) if the jaded teenager had actually been the murderer, or partially to blame, instead of completely innocent and ignorant about what happened. 

Unless there are going to be a lot of cases that involve free services to the less fortunate who are wrongly accused, I don't see how Bull and his co-workers are going to maintain their moral high-ground and superiority complexes.  

Edited September 22, 2016 by shrewd.buddha

[Tara Ariano]

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

Should You Fall For CBS's Dr. Phil-Inspired Load Of Bull?

Or is it guilty of great-man fluffing? Sarah D. Bunting renders a judgment.

[Callietwo]

My problem with the premise is.. we're supposed to buy that Bull is this super duper sleuth able to figure out what you're thinking based on internet searches and mind reading but if he's to keep that image up, he'll have to win a LOT of his cases and where is the suspense in that?  

And I couldn't put the idea that it's based on Dr. Phil out of my mind and kept thinking what an egotistical piece of shite that man is to have this character be so smart, so handsome, so charming (ish)  No, Dr. Phil, you are none of these things.  

[shapeshifter]

Just because someone can charm the birds out of the trees (Dr. Phil? Not always. Weatherly? Moreso) is no reason for me to respect that person, but it is a valid reason add that person's show to my fluff category of viewing. He's no Mr. Robot, but my brain doesn't have room for too many Breaking Bad or Orphan Black shows.

[buttersister]

Quote

Chris Jackson is why I tuned in

Dit-to. Maybe he'll start whistling while he works? In other news, "boss?" No. Not good to remind me how much you have riding on this mish-mash. I'll go along with the idea that it's a pilot and check back in at some point to see if it settles down/gets more interesting/original.

[ParadoxLost]

20 hours ago, brgjoe said:

I am glad someone else mentioned that meeting between Dr. Bull and that jury member towards the end of the episode.  That was basically my "WTF?" moment from that show.  I thought I had missed something.  Just didn't see why they decided to put that scene in there.  Granted, I was on a jury once and me as a jury member wished I could have talked with both the prosecutor and the defense attorney.  Just seemed a bit odd as to why Dr. Bull felt he needed to go over and chat on the street with that jury member.  Hope that doesn't become a thing in this show as well.

And MW's vocal delivery didn't really bother me.  I felt he would probably have a different sort of manner than his DiNozzo character did. 

The one time I was on a jury, the prosecutor did come to see the jury afterwards to explain how we were right to convict because of all the prior convictions he didn't get certified in time to make them part of the case.  The jurors then pointed out the gaping and obvious holes in the defendants testimony that they totally missed.  Like totally destroyed my faith in the justice system missed.  It won't be difficult for me that Bull has to close the gaps in attorney's cases.

What I am having a problem with is the Dr Phil vibe.  A lot of that is on Weatherly.  I think he's doing it on purpose in the same way he used to wear the wrong size clothes on NCIS as part of his acting method.

[MyAimIsTrue]

9 hours ago, buttersister said:

I'll go along with the idea that it's a pilot and check back in at some point to see if it settles down/gets more interesting/original.

That's what I hope happens.  Obviously with a new show they have to throw a lot into the pilot episode to tell backstory and whatnot so perhaps the rest of the episodes will settle into a decent procedural.  Basically I want this to work because of MW and Christopher Jackson.

[LGGirl]

The writing was so terrible I felt sorry for the actors.   Bad.  Bad. Bad. 

I will only tune in if I want to watch another train wreck. .

[FormerMod-a1]

I finally watched it and I liked it.  I added it to my DVR.  

[atomationage]

On 9/20/2016 at 5:29 PM, Pfj99 said:

 I get the impression the show, and Dr. Phil's early career, is all about jury selection and manipulation.

Dr Phil got to where he is today because he was a jury consultant on Oprah's "beef is bad" defamation trial in Texas.  I'm curious if they get that far, but so far, I think this show is atrocious.  I can't stand most of the actors' voices.   My only hope would be if they present people who make fun of  "Bull" every episode.   I doubt that Dr. Phil wants that.

I did like the girlfriend throwing her purse at the pompous lawyer and bloodying his nose.

Edited September 24, 2016 by atomationage
atrocious isn't strong enough

[statsgirl]

For a show that is all about "jury science" (a very pretentious phrase), their assumptions about the jury take ridiculous leaps of logic.  I also find the idea of manipulating a jury to the benefit of your client to be rather unsavoury.

I'm surprised that Bull didn't point out that Taylor was a narcissist.  Those huge blown up photos of herself decorating the walls of her room were a dead give-away.

"You've been testifying since day one."  Attanasio used to write better dialogue, that sounds like McGraw to me.

"Bull" is a singularly appropriate title for this show.

On 2016-09-21 at 1:13 PM, thewhiteowl said:

As an aside, I've met Dr Phil and believe it or not the man is loaded with charisma. He makes you feel absolutely connected with just a long look.

That's interesting because on TV he comes off as really sleazy.  Maybe it's like Oliver Sacks' story, The President's Speech, where people with all their senses believed him but those who could hear but not see, and those who could see but not hear found him duplicitous.

[lorikauai]

This show reminded me of Matlock (yes I'm that old). Pompous but charming main character (MW needs to work a little more on the charming part but I think he can deliver). Wealthy, but (almost) always innocent client. Murder always solved by the lead. The jury analysis is the twist that makes it different. I thought they tried too hard with the jurors talking to the camera (like early Sex & the City) and I bet they'll drop that quickly. The cancellation of Mysteries of Laura left a fluffy mystery hole in my TV schedule that this might fill. I expect it will improve a bit.

 

I loved seeing Frederick Weller on my screen. Oh how I've missed Marshall Marshall Mann. 

[Sandiscot]

I'm just trying to figure out how so many of you managed to watch the whole show.

I loved MW in NCIS. I watched, maybe, ten minutes of this and will not watch again. Well, maybe in a few weeks, if it's still on, to see if it's improved.

As a few others have suggested, maybe MW could go back to NCIS.

[shapeshifter]

8 hours ago, atomationage said:

Dr Phil got to where he is today because he was a jury consultant on Oprah's "beef is bad" defamation trial in Texas.  I'm curious if they get that far, but so far, I think this show is atrocious.  I can't stand most of the actors' voices.   My only hope would be if they present people who make fun of  "Bull" every episode.   I doubt that Dr. Phil wants that.

I did like the girlfriend throwing her purse at the pompous lawyer and bloodying his nose.

Not that it matters, but I'm pretty sure it was an iPad Mini that he had handed to her to read something from or maybe just to look at. She hit him with the edge of it, which should have broken a bone or two.

[shksabelle]

A show about a sleazy, arrogant con man produced by said sleazy, arrogant con man.

Another job opportunity for his son.

Oh, and they left out half his name, Bulls**t

[camussie]

Quote

As a few others have suggested, maybe MW could go back to NCIS.

I liked the show but even if it ends up not succeeding in the long term I hope MW stays far away from NCIS.  After the way Tony was written his last few years on the show MW deserves much better than that. He can do more than play the comic relief and/or purseholder to others'  neverending angst.  Like or hate Bull I felt at least MW got to play a character with his own story versus playing a character who simply reacts to others's endless dramas up to and including  as he is being written off the show.  

As for this

Quote

I'm just trying to figure out how so many of you managed to watch the whole show.

I am trying to figure out why that is so hard for you to understand.  People have different tastes.  You didn't like it but others of us did.  

Edited September 25, 2016 by camussie

[Ceindreadh]

16 hours ago, Sandiscot said:

I'm just trying to figure out how so many of you managed to watch the whole show.

I loved MW in NCIS. I watched, maybe, ten minutes of this and will not watch again. Well, maybe in a few weeks, if it's still on, to see if it's improved.

As a few others have suggested, maybe MW could go back to NCIS.

I watched several seasons of NCIS where Tony was written as a buffoon, an idiot, somebody who shouldn't have been on Gibbs's team.  I watched as his team treated him like something they'd scraped off theirs shoes.  I watched as he was abused verbally and physically by his teammates.  I watched because I liked MW and was hoping that TPTB would remember what the character and the team had been like back in the beginning.

Now I'm watching MW play the leader of a team where his character seems to be intelligent and liked and respected.  Nobody has smacked anybody on the head, nobody has pulled a gun on anybody and expected to be considered not only a loyal team member but also a potential love interest.

If this show crashes and burns (which I really hope it doesn't), I hope that MW stays miles away from NCIS.  They treated his character like crap, they gave him a send-off which could have been lifted from a dozen badly written fanfics.  NCIS doesn't deserve him. 

[juliet73]

I like the idea of this show, but the outcome was just meh. First of all, it's based on Dr. Phil. Blech! He's famous for helping Oprah 20 years ago with the beef lawsuit.  Before Google,  before social media, etc. A lot of this show was looking into the juror's lives via Facebook and Instagram to "read" them and their lives. Obviously, that's not how Dr. Phil did it back in the day. 

Secondly, I'm not familiar with the lead actor. He did fine with the material he was given. However, I think the character was supposed to likeable, but instead came across as a pompous ass.  Lie to Me was more believable. And The Mentalist was much more charming. 

Finally,  how many cases of the week can there be?  There are only a handful of defendants that can afford this type of service and I didn't hear them mention they do pro bono work. I think it would have been better if ONE case lasted all season. Everything was too rushed and then tied neatly with a bow in 42 minutes.  I would much rather see more character development with the defendants, jurors, legal team,  Bull's squad,  etc. over the course of 13-20 episodes instead. 

[LakeGal]

I love Michael W.  But I can't stand Dr Phil.  That is my big problem.  I want this to be successful for Michael.  But I hate the fact Dr Phil will enjoy any praise this show gets. 

[backgroundnoise]

I stopped watching NCIS about mid-season 2 because I couldn't stand watching the eternal-high-schooler Dinozzo character one more second.  I watched this show because of the premise, not Weatherly,  but I like the character and show enough to stick around at least a little while longer. 

I'd like a little more depth, though, and more explanation about why they think people vote the way they do.   Too much "this person will do this, that person will do that" without enough background. 

[Sandman]

Yeah, not a fan of Dr. Phil. And the person-on-the-street opening confab about innocent until proven guilty had me saying, out loud, "Well, THAT was super-annoying!" before the teaser was half over.

Also, show, don't make F. Rod sound like a pompous bag of dongs with a juicy fake accent in the first five minutes of your pilot. KTHXBY.

[joobie]

On 9/20/2016 at 8:48 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

First, it's Marshall Marshall; now it's Pete Peters. What is it with Weller playing characters with two first names? Or two last names?

The trial...science of this is not wooing me. Like the "mirror jury" thing.  With a hacker on staff, and ability to bug clients' things...ooooookay.NOT.

Sigh. I wonder if Michael can go back to NCIS?

His name was Marshall Mann. He was a marshal hence the Marshal Marshall name.

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, joobie said:

 

On September 20, 2016 at 8:48 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

First, it's Marshall Marshall; now it's Pete Peters. What is it with Weller playing characters with two first names? Or two last names?...

His name was Marshall Mann. He was a marshal hence the Marshal Marshall name.

I think they were just being cute with a little shout out to the actor's fans. There were a couple of similar bits, but I can't recall them. Anyone else?

[Skycatcher]

On 9/25/2016 at 11:32 PM, juliet73 said:

I think it would have been better if ONE case lasted all season. Everything was too rushed and then tied neatly with a bow in 42 minutes.  I would much rather see more character development with the defendants, jurors, legal team,  Bull's squad,  etc. over the course of 13-20 episodes instead. 

Excellent idea!  Maybe not one case for the entire season, but certainly only a few.  That would give them a chance to do all the stuff you suggested, and make for a very interesting show.  And as they move from case 1 to case 2, why and how were their services selected? What made Dr. B choose to work with that particular case.

And...... does Dr. B and his team only work on one case at a time? They'd have to charge a pretty penny. Or do they spread their services around to several cases at the same time?

[atomationage]

If Bull is going  to win every case every week, then that's "bull".

[Netfoot]

1 hour ago, atomationage said:

If Bull is going  to win every case every week

Well, if he loses one, you can be sure that it won't be his fault...

[fastiller]

On 9/21/2016 at 8:42 AM, beadgirl said:

No kidding.  Apparently this high-powered attorney with years and years of experience didn't know to clean up his client and put him in a suit.  Or how to voir dire.  Or realize that how one presents the evidence matters.  If this whole series is going to be "Bull always knows better than every trial attorney ever," I'm out.

 

Not just a 'high-powered attorney with years and years of experience" but also the effing former effing Attorney General of the effing United States.  For some reason I can't imagine Eric Holder or John Ashcroft or Janet Reno or Ed Meese taking on a murder case. 

On 9/21/2016 at 1:13 PM, thewhiteowl said:

As an aside, I've met Dr Phil and believe it or not the man is loaded with charisma. He makes you feel absolutely connected with just a long look. I did not quite get that from Bull but am willing to be persuaded. I'm so in.

Well, there has to be a reason he got on TV.  Even the most awful TV personalities have to have some level of charisma to get on a show.  Though I suppose it helps that he hitched his star to Oprah.

[catray]

Finally got around to watching this episode (a week later) and the jury's still out (pun intended). I didn't hate and it definitely has "mindless tv" potential, but I can't say I was really engaged. I'll give it a few more episodes because I feel I can't really make a decision based on a pilot episode so hopefully it draws me back in. The team seems generally likeable and I did get a chuckle out of the "call me boss" scene, though, so I'll be back to see how it goes.

I'm rooting for Michael Weatherly to succeed, but I'm not sure if I love this show.

[Guest]

On 9/21/2016 at 11:00 PM, brgjoe said:

I am glad someone else mentioned that meeting between Dr. Bull and that jury member towards the end of the episode.  That was basically my "WTF?" moment from that show.  I thought I had missed something.  Just didn't see why they decided to put that scene in there.  Granted, I was on a jury once and me as a jury member wished I could have talked with both the prosecutor and the defense attorney.  Just seemed a bit odd as to why Dr. Bull felt he needed to go over and chat on the street with that jury member.  Hope that doesn't become a thing in this show as well.

I was on a week-long jury once and the defense attorney asked to speak with us jurors after the trial.  It was nice.  Of course, we found in his favor.  But it was nice that he asked why.  Though I didn't really like that scene with Bull and Bess (Beth?)  I don't need all my TV heros to be damaged, or for a random juror to be psychic.

This did remind me of Lie to Me, in a good way.  I liked that show.  I have no NCIS experience so no prior MW role issues for me.  

My only Dr. Phil exposure is that I've read one of his books, and it was good, so I'm fine with him.  I'm generally ok with the Oprah peeps.  Except Bob Greene.

My 16 year old called that the kid was gay in his first scene.  

[sinkwriter]

After watching the first two episodes, I'm wondering, did Dr. Phil ever lose a trial on which he helped consult? Surely he couldn't be 100% in his track record, and I hope not, because 1) I'd like to see what happens if Bull ever loses a trial, and 2) I'd like to see Bull help someone who isn't rich, because if his only clients are ones who can afford him, then it's going to be a show about watching the rich pay for help that most of the rest of us could not afford, and that kind of sucks.

I want the show to do well and be interesting, though, because I'm rooting for Michael Weatherly.

[mbutterfly]

On September 20, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Skycatcher said:

I loved watching her as she took in information from the testimonies.  The changes on her face were soooo subtle. Very good.

As for the show......not sure.  I may watch a few more episodes, but I'm not seeing how it won't become very tedious very quickly. Or is MW going to be getting involved in crime scenes, analyzing suspects, etc? Awkward.

i was hoping Bull was going to hire her. 

[Bobbin]

I just saw the pilot again in reruns. Thoughts:  

AGs don't necessarily make good trial lawyers, and vice versa. And 20 years of experience can mean making the same blunders over and over for 20 years. Bull's team is not without legal expertise. Benny, his former BIL, is a lawyer. An attorney told our Logic class that the rule is, trust a solid case to a judge to rule on the facts, take a weak case to a jury which is more likely to be swayed. Real guilt or innocence is not guaranteed by any trial, by judge or by jury. Facts can be misinterpreted, witnesses can lie, including when they swear they're telling the truth. But those are the only options in an adversarial court system. You hope for the best and that the evidence really does point to the truth.

The main weakness in this pilot ep, to my mind, is that normally in a crime show the ultimate guilty parties are given much more exposition. The wannabe girlfriend's parents were given so little on-screen attention that their involvement came out of nowhere. Too much going on, too many characters?

Surely, in witness-prep, Bull's team would know that the boy was not going to identify his paramour in court. That might have been the strategy, but the attorney seemed at a loss at the time that he wouldn't name names.

Can't wait for season 2.