S01.E02: The Woman in 6D

[Guest]

On 10/3/2016 at 5:19 AM, aquarian1 said:

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.

That makes more sense.

Another thing odd to me was that they seem able to watch the jurors socializing and determine who's influential.  In my week-long jury, I don't think we spoke to each other at all until the deliberations at the end.  

[Tara Ariano]

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

Why Don't They Just Make The Whole Plane Out Of Bull?

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

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Calamity Jane said:

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.  

Rich or cute and female.

[thewhiteowl]

At two episodes in, I don't think I can judge what every episode and every client will be. I hope they mix it up but either way I will be tuning in. 

[catray]

Ok, finally got around to watching the second episode and I liked it better than the pilot. Maybe because I have a morbid fascination with airline disasters, or maybe because I liked the defendant but either way I found it more enjoyable. I agree there's a lot of suspension of disbelief that has to happen for this show, in regards to the cost and freakish accuracy of the mirror jury (in terms of looks alone, it's kind of creepy). I kind of want to see where they take this, and personally I think Bull needs to lose a few cases (or take some guilty/not pleasant cases) so he doesn't win (or feel good about it) every time. But it's fluffy and I like all the team members. 

[lh25]

13 hours ago, catray said:

personally I think Bull needs to lose a few cases (or take some guilty/not pleasant cases) so he doesn't win (or feel good about it) every time.

I agree.  It's going to get old if he's always the hero, saving the innocent person who is really nicer then first thought.

[Calamity Jane]

But I definitely do not want to see him working to get a guilty party acquitted, and so far I haven't heard them say they are dedicated to getting the truth rather than just to the client.  The current ad has him saying something like, "I change jurors' minds," but no guarantees he's working on the side of the angels.  I most emphatically would not watch a show that worked to acquit all clients regardless of guilt or innocence, and I haven't heard anyone say yet that's not their brief.  All of the juror stalking has me really close to ditching it anyway; that would just be the last straw.  

I like Michael Weatherly a lot, but I wish they'd found a better show for him.  Is this one even going to survive?  

[marina to]

Watched this episode after not seeing the show for over a year and thought, "wow, they listened to us wanting to know more about the trial and less about the personal trials and tribulations of the TAC team". Didn't even click it was season 1. I don't remember it. I really enjoyed the episode though. Is it worth trying to catch up on this season?

[Dowel Jones]

In my opinion, the show still tends to swerve from the believable/interesting to the absolute absurd from week to week, so it's best left up to a matter of taste.  I still watch, but always on DVR and sometimes not for a couple of days.  There are some plot arcs that are best served by browsing the comments for Season 2 if you don't want to binge watch.