S01.E02: The Woman in 6D

[MyAimIsTrue]

Dr. Bull and his Trial Analysis Corporation (TAC) team must formulate a new defense strategy when they discover the jury has a subconscious gender bias toward their client, a female pilot accused of negligence after one of her flights crashes.

[dungeonwriter]

It's really hard for me to believe in the mirror juries, since every case would cost millions. 

Otherwise, decent show. 

[stonehaven]

I started to snark on this show and said "oh Come on" too often...I am out...I love MW but this show strains credibility for me...and a friend raised a good point...there's no one for MW to really play off of...

[statsgirl]

I'm having trouble accepting the premise of this show in terms of how specific they have the mirror jury react.  Not every single woman who is 37 and teaches grade five is going to react the same way.  Maybe when you look at aggregates but thsi show gets too specific for me.

I'm also getting tired of "juror X" is the leader and seeing it this way -- we must change her mind!"

Lie To Me went off the rails when it went more for shock value than actually research the psychologist on whose work it was based actually blogged about what was true and what wasn't) and Bulls seems to be heading in the same direction.

[pcta]

My problem is that I keep seeing Dr Phil - whom I hate - and can't reconcile that with MW's character (who has some redeeming social value)

[shapeshifter]

42 minutes ago, dungeonwriter said:

It's really hard for me to believe in the mirror juries, since every case would cost millions. 

Otherwise, decent show. 

 

25 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

I'm having trouble accepting the premise of this show in terms of how specific they have the mirror jury react.  Not every single woman who is 37 and teaches grade five is going to react the same way.  Maybe when you look at aggregates but thsi show gets too specific for me.....

 

I agree that in real life the mirror juries would be expensive and not reliably "mirrors." But I'm willing to suspend disbelief if the show engages me for an hour, and so far it does. It's not the kind of show where we can disect and philosophize for 5 pages, but at least I didn't lose track of the plot or stumble into plot holes, or get lost in complexities (like the Major Crimes multi-part who-dunnits). The mirror jury so far is a consistant conceit. And I do like Weatherly's character. Maybe it will turn out that he's a billionaire using his own money for the mirror juries. Or maybe he lures them in with some psychological trickery. Plus no gratuitous violence. I'll give it time.

Edited September 28, 2016 by shapeshifter

[camussie]

I don't see Dr. Phil at all so that isn't an issue with me.  Also while the mirror jury would be ridiculously expensive in real life I can go with it for a TV show.  I like that they made it clear that they choose their mirror juries based on a very complicated algorithm versus them being based on one or two characteristics.  

One thing I love is Dr. Bull's team.  It is obvious they are all very good at their jobs and all respect what each other brings to the table.  On a shallow note Marissa's professional wardrobe is to die for.  Flattering yet professional looking.  Reminds me of Jessica's wardrobe on Suits.  

As far as where they need to improve - the time jumps.  They weren't as smooth as they needed to be.  Also cut down a bit on the tech talk as the show goes on.

Regarding the case this week, I liked that it was such a contrast to last week's case which allowed us to see a little bit deeper into Bull and some members of his team. And I thought exploring the issue of gender bias when it comes to women in positions of  control was interesting.  I know some will write it off but there is a reason (most of it from thousands of years of history) that you drive like a woman or throw like a girl are ubiquitous in our society as shorthand for you just don't quite measure up.  In the future they could do the opposite when it comes to judging men in caretaker positions. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by camussie

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well color me shocked. Not only is Michael Weatherly a producer, so is Steven Spielberg!?

I'm going to stick with this. Why? Because I can't remember the last show I watched that was realistic in any way in recent years.

I liked tonight's show, except for the stupidity of Taylor refusing to confirm her copilot was having an affair, something his wife was aware of.  And out of some sense of honor, preferred being labeled as incompetent, a piss-poor pilot, and sacrificing her career? And it took a lame reverse psychology from Bull to change her mind.  Ooookay.???

Did love Benny's use of the bullying pictures to show the jury their own gender bias.

[marina to]

This was soooo much better than last week. Engaging client, getting to know the team a bit more, less focus on the manipulation of the jury. I'm willing to give this show another shot.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Well color me shocked. Not only is Michael Weatherly a producer, so is Steven Spielberg!?

I'm going to stick with this. Why? Because I can't remember the last show I watched that was realistic in any way in recent years.

I liked tonight's show, except for the stupidity of Taylor refusing to confirm her copilot was having an affair, something his wife was aware of.  And out of some sense of honor, preferred being labeled as incompetent, a piss-poor pilot, and sacrificing her career? And it took a lame reverse psychology from Bull to change her mind.  Ooookay.???

Did love Benny's use of the bullying pictures to show the jury their own gender bias.

I thought the flight simulator triggered her memory recall that was lost in the head injury. Admittedly, classic tropes.

[Dowel Jones]

The jury verdict was all well and good, but (since they brought up OJ, so will I), a civil suit requires a much lower level of proof than a criminal trial.  Wouldn't she still be under the gun for a civil trial from any of the passenger relatives, or even the airline?  She did, admittedly, violate procedure, and, although she probably saved lives on the ground, as argued, passenger relatives could argue that she sacrificed those lives for the other lives.  Not an easy case to duck.

I hope, as mentioned in the forum for the pilot, that they don't resort to a "win every time" plotline for every episode.  That will become very formulaic in a very short time.  His firm needs to face some difficulties, or even lose,  to make this interesting.

[Autumn]

One thing they need to do away with is the moment where the client looks at Dr Bull with tears in their eyes and says, "how did you know?  I didn't know myself until now".

Hopfully the show will continue to improve now they have a professional writing staff working on the scripts.

I am a lawyer and I have to suspend belief on every legal show so this one is not that different.

[JackONeill]

I'd like to emphasize one thing that many have mentioned. An airline pilot could not afford someone like Bull. And airline company COULD, but not an individual pilot, flying solo (yes, intended).

Experts like Bull's gang (and they do exist for mock trials and jury selection, etc) are the province of wealthy clients, like the father in last week's show. Without knowing how wealthy, I could still accept he could afford it, especially because of the way he felt for his son. (He seemed to be the kind of guy that if he didn't personally have the money, he could find it.)

But the pilot -- No. 

But, at least in my mind, she made a better and more sympathetic client which is good for keeping the viewer engaged.

That means, though, that reality has to be overlooked. But this is TV.

[thewhiteowl]

I don't recall payment being mentioned. Bull seems to be solvent enough to take the cases he wants to take but the show is young, I'll give it some time to shore up the details. It seem like the plane was going down no matter what the pilot did but what she did saved lives on the ground.  I liked it.

[MyAimIsTrue]

I liked the verdict because I felt the captain was a sympathetic character but I'm still not sure this show can hold my interest long term.  I kept flipping to the baseball game during it and didn't care if I came back late from commercials.

[Mama No Life]

I guess I'm holding this up to NCIS standards, which means it doesn't have to be realistic or plausible. Just entertaining. And Weatherly is doing it for me.  I liked it.  It's not high-brow drama but it's okay for what it is.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Mama No Life
brow not brown

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, MyAimIsTrue said:

I liked the verdict because I felt the captain was a sympathetic character but I'm still not sure this show can hold my interest long term.  I kept flipping to the baseball game during it and didn't care if I came back late from commercials.

The Cub v Pirates? I don't watch sports, but this was the Billy Goat Cursed v the team who just tragically lost a member to an accident (rather than scandal). So I can understand your channel flipping,

[LGGirl]

I couldn't get through the episode.  It's so implausible, fake, and the writing is forced, but YMMV.  

[MyAimIsTrue]

6 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

The Cub v Pirates? I don't watch sports, but this was the Billy Goat Cursed v the team who just tragically lost a member to an accident (rather than scandal). So I can understand your channel flipping,

No, the Rays vs. the White Sox.  The Marlins are the team that just lost a player in a tragic accident and I watched their game the night before and cried during all of the tributes :(

[Ms Blue Jay]

I really loved the pilot (ugh, not the AIRPLANE PILOT, LOL!  THE SHOW'S pilot. Hahaha!)

This one was compelling enough but there's some logistical questions I'm going to pose because this is what I was left with at the end of the show.

1)  How does the pilot avoiding the street of people prove she wasn't at fault for the passengers' deaths?  IT DOESN'T!  It avoids the issue, does it not!?  Was it simply that the plane had hit weather that no pilot could get out of and they were doomed?  Was there a way a better navigation/weather system would have been able to help the pilot to avoid this the bad weather?  How is the airline responsible for the deaths?  Is the airline responsible, at all?  Only in the hiring of the pilot, right?  This was twisting my mind around.

2)  What happened with the co-pilot, exactly?  The co-pilot was a male who was having an affair with someone on the plane and they had just gotten into a fight.  What was that woman, exactly?  A flight attendant?  Was the co-pilot helping the pilot during the turbulence, or not?

[Dowel Jones]

1) That was my contention also.  Regarding the nav system, a Wiki article says that the FAA mandated radar detection equipment for wind shear in 1993 for all airlines and ATC airports, but my guess is that technology isn't always a savior, but it does put more pressure on the pilot in the civil suit.  The airline is responsible because they have deep pockets, pure and simple.

2) The pilot made the statement that she had control of the plane and the co-pilot wasn't needed to fly it.  Bad idea, in my mind.  They were implying through Bull's strategy that the plane was going down no matter what, and her military tactics saved people on the ground, but doomed the passengers. I think the co-pilot's woman was just an anonymous add-in who happened to look like the pilot, which served the rather convoluted plot to get the co-pilot's wife to blow up in mock court instead of real court.  I don't know.

[shapeshifter]

18 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I really loved the pilot (ugh, not the AIRPLANE PILOT, LOL!  THE SHOW'S pilot. Hahaha!)

This one was compelling enough but there's some logistical questions I'm going to pose because this is what I was left with at the end of the show.

1)  How does the pilot avoiding the street of people prove she wasn't at fault for the passengers' deaths?  IT DOESN'T!  It avoids the issue, does it not!?  Was it simply that the plane had hit weather that no pilot could get out of and they were doomed?  Was there a way a better navigation/weather system would have been able to help the pilot to avoid this the bad weather?  How is the airline responsible for the deaths?  Is the airline responsible, at all?  Only in the hiring of the pilot, right?  This was twisting my mind around.

2)  What happened with the co-pilot, exactly?  The co-pilot was a male who was having an affair with someone on the plane and they had just gotten into a fight.  What was that woman, exactly?  A flight attendant?  Was the co-pilot helping the pilot during the turbulence, or not?

1) I think it becomes accidental once they proved intent.

2) The girlfriend was the woman in 6D, hence the episode title, like the pilot title refering to the murder weapon (the necklace). In both cases, titling of the episode was an arrow pointing to a crucial detail that is given cursory coverage in the episode. So, the copilot came back to the cabin in the middle of the wind sheer, flustered by girlfriend issues (the woman in 6D), lecturing the pilot about protocols rather than asking for her input about the situation.  
Where I live, close to a high bluff adjacent to Lake Michigan, tornados turn into wind shears because there is no longer flat prarie conducive to tornado formation. I'm no expert, but wind shears near here rip up large, old trees and smash them into homes and across roads. The shear tears down power polls. So I can imagine an experienced (139 sorties) pilot could feel when crashing was unavoidable. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

I really appreciate the answers guys.  

[Primetimer]

And more not-quite-burning questions amid the wreckage of a plane crash that killed 'The Woman In 8D' (and 61 other people).

View the full article

[Gregg247]

I love science fiction, and I'll hand-wave away a lot of questionable things, but "Bull" just goes too far for me.  

The mirror juries are ridiculous.  How does he find people who match the real jurors exactly?  How much does THAT cost?  How long does it take? Do these mirror juries sit in the audience for the actual trial every day AND sit in mock trial experiments after-hours?  Wouldn't that "behind the scenes" experimentation spoil the mirror jury and lead to incorrect results? (i.e.-the "mirrors" are no longer mirrors, because they have way more inside information than the actual jurors do.)

The issue of the co-pilot's affair was easily put to rest when Bull's associate managed to find video evidence from one of the dead passengers' social sites that just so happened to show a dust-up that led directly to the identity of the girlfriend!  

The pilot broke every rule in the FAA book, but it turns out that she had a good reason, and her combat training gave her expertise that no other commercial pilots had, leading to saving many innocent live on the ground. (I think many commercial pilots get their start in the military.)

When potential jurors are being questioned, Bull's staff has immediate and incredibly complete information about the private lives of each one of them.  (This one may be somewhat accurate, but I really, really hope not.  That's creepy.)

What's the over/under on # of episodes before we get this one?  Bull takes on the case of a penniless young man from the wrong side of the tracks and uses his skills to get a jury to find this obviously guilty guy is actually innocent.  Then, the jury's decision is condemned by the public, until new evidence (produced by Bull) proves his innocence completely!  You KNOW its coming.

Years ago, NBC had a drama set in a fertility clinic called "Inconcievable" (I think that was the title)  Anyway, I could never figure out how you could do a weekly series around such a limiting theme.  I never found out, because it was cancelled after 4 episodes, having exhausted every idea I think the writers and producers could come up with.  I think "Bull" will be in the same boat, story-wise, very soon.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well. He did his own investigating, as well as using the services of a private investigator, and won every single one of his cases, except for one. Albeit, before it was sent to a jury. Except for the one he lost, and then, of course, was able to get his client freed when he found the real murderer. And his show lasted nine seasons. And made over 30 movies until his death. Who? Why, Perry Mason of course.

Then again, that show had better writers and more believable plots, so there you go.

I watched another show on and off, but didn't Matlock also have only innocent clients?

But the way this show goes about it, I find myself rolling my eyes. Especially the mirror jury parts and how the actual jury breaks the fourth wall and "speaks" to me.

Edited September 28, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Dowel Jones]

I would like to see an episode, maybe a multi-episode arc, where Bull & Co. take on a high profile civil case between two very rich clients, and Bull is faced off with another top notch jury research company with every bit of resource that he has.  Let's make it a contest for once.

[JessDVD]

I read this like Bull (at least the show version of him) is donating his services, based on his line to the woman (I'll grant I wasn't paying full attention but I think I got this part right), something like "I'd like to take your case", like "I'd like to help you". Not "Do you want to hire me to take this case".

I have concluded that I need to pay more attention in future weeks and probably watch this one again because I seem to have missed important parts of it.

I can suspend almost everything necessary for this show, but the mirror jury is a little much. So far I like the regulars, and will try to learn their names next week.

[Skycatcher]

This episode was OK, better than the pilot episode.  But I kept flashing on the movie "Sully", which I thoroughly enjoyed.

[beadgirl]

My father was a criminal defense attorney, and although he enjoyed watching both Perry Mason and Matlock, he had a lot to say about their realism.  I used to be a lawyer, too, so I am used to suspending disbelief (though some shows are much more realistic than others). The problem with Bull is that the writers go over-the-top with all the gadgets, info, insights, etc. they give to Bull, making him practically superhuman.  Moreover, they feel the need to hit us over the head with how much better he is than everyone else, especially the attorneys.  The dozens of mock/mirror juries, the simulations, the ridiculous amount of info available instantaneously, the enormous offices, it's all too much.  Add that Bull is never wrong, the attorneys always suck, his clients are perfect victims (neither guilty nor unlikeable) and the result is a show that makes me mutter angrily the whole time.

There is potential here, even if they stick to a case-of-the-week format -- what if Bull makes a mistake?  What if he's right, and still loses?  What if he's hired by an actually guilty defendant? What if they started addressing class and race issues, and flaws in the legal system?  What if he, or another staff member, has a crisis of conscience about how his work apparently only benefits the 1%? What if he offered "modified" packages that are more affordable? What if they addressed the creepy violations of the jurors' privacy? What if he has a case where there is no way to ever really find out what the truth is?  What if there is no clear-cut right and wrong? But so far, they are keeping the story and moral calculus of this show simplistic, which makes me not want to watch it.

[kaygeeret]

I like Michael Weatherly as lot ever since his time in the show he co starred with Jessica Alba - name escapes me at the moment -

HOWEVER, just yikes.

Mirror Jury??? Really?  Maybe for Warren Buffet, but seriously the entire concept is a bit far fetched to say the least.

I watched the pilot and about 30 minutes of epi 2 and I switched to something else.  It is in fact a bore and soooooooo predictable.

[marina to]

There's still people like my parents who loved Perry Mason and Matlock. To be honest, I like seeing justice triumph every week as well. If they can keep things going like this week, I think this show has a shot at making it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

10 minutes ago, marina to said:

There's still people like my parents who loved Perry Mason and Matlock. To be honest, I like seeing justice triumph every week as well. If they can keep things going like this week, I think this show has a shot at making it.

I still love Perry Mason! Watch it everyday, cuz I've got it recorded on my dvr as MeTV airs it! 

[candall]

As long as I can brain-bleach the thought of Dr. Phil watching the show and preening, I'm in.

 

I don't care if the whole TAC system is implausibly expensive.  I was a lawyer (too, hi) and believe most people would be stunned at the RIDICULOUS, relentless, ongoing expense of mounting a high-profile, complicated trial defense.  For me it's enough to have tossed in the remarks that all the major players would automatically be racing to hire "TAC."  That satisfies the issue of why he'd choose to represent the bank-deficient pilot:  Bull's apparently the go-to guy for every deep-pocket wanker in the world.  Blerg.  Can you imagine the depths of that suck? 

 

He's sure to lose eventually, but maybe the first two establishing episodes would have been premature.

 

No one tells McGraw I'm defending this show.

[MyAimIsTrue]

4 minutes ago, candall said:

No one tells McGraw I'm defending this show.

Shh, it'll be our secret.

[shksabelle]

Is Phil really so totally blinded by his ego that he didn't think ahead that at least 50% of people watching this show would add another 4-letter  word to the name?

[brgjoe]

I pretty much eliminate the "Dr. Phil" stuff from my head after the opening credits roll.

With regards to that "mirror jury", I cringe at the thought of someone else walking around who could actually be my double.  Yipe!  :)

And in case I did miss it, did they explain why the ex-prosecuting attorney now the defense attorney was fired from his original position?  Anyway, I thought it was a decent enough episode.  First lawyer was scum.  Don't know why Dr. Bull didn't ask him to take a hike long before that.  I did wonder how that young pilot was able to afford the expense of that mirror jury, Dr. Bull, and the new lawyer.  But I suspended my disbelief on that one.  Though I did wonder why she would keep that other woman's affair a secret.  It's her life and career on the line.  I never saw where she vowed to keep such a secret even in death.  Maybe she was feeling guilty about her friend's death, as well as the others on the plane.  Just seemed strange she would keep it a secret at all costs.

Also, it doesn't bother me that Dr. Bull's team keeps winning.  I was a bit Matlock fan, and never really cared that he won pretty much all the time as well.  And this show reminds me of that show sometimes.

I like it so far. 

[FormerMod-a1]

I google search led to many articles on Mirror Juries.  Here are just the first 2 that turned up for me.

1) A service that offers/uses mirror juries and their benefits - The Advocates.  "scientific precautions" sounds like their version of the 40 attribute algorith Bull uses.

2) An article from 1986 about a case that used a mirror jury.

[JessDVD]

OK, I watched it again without simultaneously doing stuff on my computer (note to self: do this more often), and it all made A LOT more sense and I did actually enjoy it. I still find the mirror jury thing weird, and am not sure I want to think about people actually having that much access to people's stuff (note to self: review FB privacy settings). But it's fiction (I hope) and I find all the regular characters to be engaging and interesting so far.

[Whimsy]

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 10:46 PM, kaygeeret said:

I like Michael Weatherly as lot ever since his time in the show he co starred with Jessica Alba - name escapes me at the moment

Dark Angel.

1 hour ago, JessDVD said:

But it's fiction (I hope)

I don't think this is that fictitious.  I think jurors in major trials are VERY vetted by both the prosecution and defense teams. 

[Ohmo]

On 9/28/2016 at 3:13 AM, Dowel Jones said:

I hope, as mentioned in the forum for the pilot, that they don't resort to a "win every time" plotline for every episode.  That will become very formulaic in a very short time.  His firm needs to face some difficulties, or even lose,  to make this interesting.

 

On 9/28/2016 at 1:46 PM, Gregg247 said:

 The mirror juries are ridiculous.  How does he find people who match the real jurors exactly?  How much does THAT cost?  How long does it take? Do these mirror juries sit in the audience for the actual trial every day AND sit in mock trial experiments after-hours?  Wouldn't that "behind the scenes" experimentation spoil the mirror jury and lead to incorrect results? (i.e.-the "mirrors" are no longer mirrors, because they have way more inside information than the actual jurors do.)

 

I am trying to like this show for Michael and Freddy's sake, but I agree TPTB need to address the cost of all this.  Most of us wave away plausibility with shows, but this one is tough.  Jason Bull's entire operation has got to cost a FORTUNE to operate.  Airline pilots don't have that much cash.  The cost sticks out like a sore thumb.

I also think Jason has a serious case of Ziva David Syndrome.  (Yes, I'm crossing shows.)  He has two Ph.D's (or was it three)?  He happens to be a pilot.  I like Freddy Rodriguez a bunch, but Jason Bull happens to have a lawyer on staff who can step in?  We're in "special snowflake" status with Jason.  He's so awesome, isn't he, audience?  Don't you love him?  Dammit, you MUST love him because he's Jason Bull!  Also, Jason is smug, and I don't think that's a Dr. Phil thing only.  Ziva was smug like that, too.

They need to "dirty up" Jason, and I'm not talking about the scruff on Michael's face.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Ohmo

[torqy]

On 9/30/2016 at 4:19 AM, brgjoe said:

With regards to that "mirror jury", I cringe at the thought of someone else walking around who could actually be my double.  Yipe!  :)

 

For several years I was told by credible people that there was someone in my metro area of 5 million who looked enough like me  that they saw "me" in various places, driving various vehicles, etc. Me, I felt sorry for the poor bugger if he looked like me...

On 9/28/2016 at 10:46 AM, Gregg247 said:

The pilot broke every rule in the FAA book, but it turns out that she had a good reason, and her combat training gave her expertise that no other commercial pilots had, leading to saving many innocent live on the ground. (I think many commercial pilots get their start in the military.)

 

I knew a pilot for a major airline who got his start as a bush pilot in Alaska.

[izabella]

Regarding the pilot's costs, if I'm remembering it correctly, at first, the costs were paid by the airline with their attorney.  When the pilot fired the attorney, she told Bull she couldn't afford an attorney, and that's when he said, no problem and offered his in-house attorney.   I deleted the episode or I'd go back and check that conversation, because I could have sworn he told her he wouldn't be charging her.

I liked this episode much more than the pilot, so I'm glad I gave it another chance.  I'm interested to see where it goes, and I have no problem handwaving a lot of stuff that isn't accurate if I'm entertained.

Edited October 2, 2016 by izabella

[Guest]

One of my sisters has been an airline captain for decades.  My daughter balked when Taylor said she couldn't afford an attorney.  

The funny thing about the mirror jury is they find say a librarian who likes Sudoku and sailing and magically, that person even LOOKS just like the real juror.  And seriously, all the 40-something white female librarians who like Sudoko and sailing have about a bazillion other differences that all lead to unique biases and mindsets.  I guess it's about odds, though, not absolutes.  

[FormerMod-a1]

It's about odds, but also they even said there's a lot more that goes into it.  Something like a 40 point algorithm, those sound bytes they have the jurors (or mirror jurors) say is just a 2 point summary.  It's not meant to be the whole picture.

[Netfoot]

37 minutes ago, aquarian1 said:

Something like a 40 point algorithm...

I think it was 404 points.

[FormerMod-a1]

Thanks.  I was going to say 400, but then doubted my myself.  :-)

[Netfoot]

24 minutes ago, aquarian1 said:

I was going to say 400, but then doubted my myself.

It was 400 in episode #1, but I guess they constantly improve?  

[Calamity Jane]

I'm trying, I'm trying so hard to like this show, but the creepiness of the mirror jury and jury selection is just getting to me.  Maybe one or two more, but I need convincing that this isn't just sleazy tactics to get rich folks better justice than the rest of us can get.  

[sinkwriter]

Quote

I like Freddy Rodriguez a bunch, but Jason Bull happens to have a lawyer on staff who can step in?

This is actually a part I believe, because why wouldn't he make sure to have a legal advisor on his team if he's consulting on trials and juries? That base needs to be covered, since Dr. Bull himself is not a lawyer.

For me, I find the idea of analyzing and studying every minute detail of a jurist's life pretty creepy. But for a show, it's still an interesting premise. And as I said in the pilot episode thread, somewhere down the line I'd like to see what happens when Bull loses a case.

Overall, I find the show entertaining, so I'm willing to overlook some of the details. But what I'd like to see is at least some scenes outside of work. Both episodes so far have been focused completely on the trials, so we don't really get a good glimpse of who any of the characters are -- the team members or Bull himself. I think we've gotten a couple of throwaway lines that hint at things about Bull, or the other characters, but nothing really concrete. Will we get to see Bull outside of work? Will we get to know his fellow colleagues on a more personal level? That's what I need in order to stay engaged. Otherwise it's going to be pretty formulaic from week to week, with the jury mirrors being put together, interviews being done, the defendant being judged and then helped, and one key jurist "figured out" just in time to get the verdict they want/need. I need a little more than that, so I'm hoping they'll expand beyond the technical aspects of trial trial trial all hour. I want to fall in love with the characters.

Edited October 4, 2016 by sinkwriter