MyAimIsTrue February 16, 2017 Share February 16, 2017 When Bull assists the U.S. Attorney’s Office with a manslaughter trial against a real estate magnate, Andrew Withrow, he finds himself once again opposing Diana Lindsay, his romantic rival. As the case gets underway, Bull’s penchant for winning goes into overdrive when he realizes the defendant is a clinical sociopath determined to use Diana to antagonize him during the proceedings Link to comment
JackONeill February 22, 2017 Share February 22, 2017 Personally, and I know I will be hated for this, but I think there's one big reason (and there are many) I don't like this show: Michael Weatherly. He, as Bull, is just too arrogant. He's not only the smartest person in the room, he's the smartest person on the planet. Yes, I guess he can argue that he's playing a real-life character, so it's all true. Weatherly had some (a lot) of this cockiness as DiNozzi, but it worked better in that role. He was a team player. There were people on that show who could knock his legs out from under him. But not here. Here he's the boss. Everything he comes up with is the right thing. The only things that seem to go wrong for him are things thrown at him from the outside (when the power that went out). People's lives are at stake and/or great summers of money yet I never feel it with this show. I used to work for a law firm, so the idea of jury selection is something I can relate to, and I understand it's role. But this show is not the show to learn about it. 1 Link to comment
Showthyme February 22, 2017 Share February 22, 2017 2 hours ago, JackONeill said: Personally, and I know I will be hated for this, but I think there's one big reason (and there are many) I don't like this show: Michael Weatherly. He, as Bull, is just too arrogant. He's not only the smartest person in the room, he's the smartest person on the planet. Yes, I guess he can argue that he's playing a real-life character, so it's all true. Yes. Bull is quite the ladies man too! It is such a turn off to me. Clearly, the firm is not as professional as they want us to believe. I wonder if IRL, Dr. Phil Bull flirted with women and accepted innuendos from women while working as CSI. I hope that there is better writing next season. The defendant's attorney is going to Bull's house to give Bull information, has a drink, they kiss, and she leaves. Mmkay. Jack: Will you answer a jury selection question for me? I have always wanted to serve on jury - civil duty and all. I never get chosen. I am a law-abiding accountant who leans towards the middle. The issue, I think, is that I have been the victim of a crime and had parents who served some time in jail. Parents fully admitted their role and never claimed that any injustice occurred. (My wayward parents raised really good kids). Neither the prosecution or the defense wants me. Why? In a way, I feel like I am being victimized twice. 2 Link to comment
hoopznyo February 22, 2017 Share February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, JackONeill said: Personally, and I know I will be hated for this, but I think there's one big reason (and there are many) I don't like this show: Michael Weatherly. He, as Bull, is just too arrogant. He's not only the smartest person in the room, he's the smartest person on the planet. Yes, I guess he can argue that he's playing a real-life character, so it's all true. This! 30 minutes ago, Showthyme said: Yes. Bull is quite the ladies man too! It is such a turn off to me. Clearly, the firm is not as professional as they want us to believe. I wonder if IRL, Dr. Phil Bull flirted with women and accepted innuendos from women while working as CSI. I hope that there is better writing next season. The defendant's attorney is going to Bull's house to give Bull information, has a drink, they kiss, and she leaves. Mmkay. And This!! 2 Link to comment
sinkwriter February 22, 2017 Share February 22, 2017 (edited) I think the problem isn't necessarily Michael Weatherly (whom I found likable on both Dark Angel and NCIS), but in how his character is being written and directed. He's written as arrogant and super-clever, which he needs to be in order to win his cases, but at the same time that makes him highly difficult to relate to or emotionally connect to and root for. In a way, I suppose the showrunners are thinking that if someone like the ultra-arrogant Dr. House can endear himself to viewers, then why not Dr. Bull? However, the writers on House managed to show House's weaknesses and emotions. We have yet to see much of anything from Bull except his arrogance and smarts. Even when he was talking personally about his own sister in last week's episode, he didn't show much of anything. I get that he's got to be a great poker face in order to read others (while not giving anything away to the opposition in court), but WE need to see beyond his exterior. We need to see beyond his poker face arrogance, or why should we give a shit about him? If they write that he's so unshakeable that nothing gets to him ever, we'll never get to know the real Bull. (Or, if this is the real Bull, again... why should I care about a guy who has no deeper emotions? Even DiNozzo had deeper emotions; he just hid them under a comic facade because of his need to please Gibbs.) Edited February 22, 2017 by sinkwriter 5 Link to comment
hoopznyo February 22, 2017 Share February 22, 2017 Sinkwriter -- very well put. That's what I was thinking and didn't have time to type while at work. 2 Link to comment
sinkwriter February 22, 2017 Share February 22, 2017 This episode irritated me so much. Between the sociopathic developer and Bull's irritating "ex"-girlfriend (who I wanted to punch every time she crossed the line by showing up at his apartment)... I wanted them both to lose that case so badly, it was getting me angry just watching any scenes they were in. I wanted Bull to crush them. And then that sociopath still got the upper hand with his "collusion" comment. And then Diane fed right into it by saying "well, we're already being accused of it so we might as well do it," which made me hate her even more. I don't find her cute, I don't find Bull cute playing games with her, I don't find the two of them good as a couple; together, they're just smug and annoying. I'm supposed to like Bull. Diane does not help with that at all. 6 Link to comment
Dowel Jones February 23, 2017 Share February 23, 2017 Even though he was a sociopath, I have to agree with Trump Withrow about the collusion. If it didn't occur, it certainly gave the impression of occurring. The entire point might be moot, though, once the civil trial gets underway. A plaintiff's verdict does not require the standard of proof required by a criminal court (see OJ Simpson). Those poor actors on the skybridge must have had a world record for shortest screen time on a tv series. Having never participated in a trial in any capacity, I confess to little expertise, but, why is a jury consultant sitting in on the plea bargain? And why is he approaching the bench to argue a point? And was the prosecution introducing evidence (the actuarial summaries) during closing arguments instead of the trial? That ain't right. C'mon, Bull. That rock wall was nothing but a long ladder. If you want a challenge, remove about half of those handholds, and spread the others out. 3 Link to comment
Bobcatkitten February 23, 2017 Share February 23, 2017 There is so much wrong on the legal side of this show that I just can't. Bull isn't an attorney - he would not be at sidebar conferences and in chambers with the judge. But this one failed massively with the closing. Uh - NONE OF THAT WAS IN EVIDENCE. You can't base your closing on a document that hasn't been introduced. Completely ridiculous. 1 Link to comment
Happy Belly February 23, 2017 Share February 23, 2017 I have to admit that I really, really, really do not like this show. I only watch it because family members like it. If it should ever get canceled, I wouldn't miss it. One more thing. He needs to shave. That stubble on his face pisses me off and I have no idea why. 2 Link to comment
sinkwriter February 23, 2017 Share February 23, 2017 Quote But this one failed massively with the closing. Uh - NONE OF THAT WAS IN EVIDENCE. You can't base your closing on a document that hasn't been introduced. Completely ridiculous. That part really threw me off too. I kept waiting for him to make some sort of comment as if the woman had been subpoenaed to testify, and now he was just reiterating her testimony about the guy actually choosing how much each person would be worth, but the writing never really said that she had taken the stand, so it just seemed like the lawyer was introducing that info into evidence during his closing, which is all kinds of wrong and I imagine would be thrown out immediately. So that was definitely unclear writing. 1 Link to comment
hoopznyo February 23, 2017 Share February 23, 2017 I think all of us in this forum could write better episodes. 5 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.