S01.E10: Chaos

[formerlyfreedom]

Season finale!

Diane takes on a new client who is accused of cyber-terrorism, resulting in unforeseen repercussions for the firm, especially Lucca. An accident brings Diane and Kurt together. Henry reveals new truths about the scandal to Maia.

 

[talktalk]

That is a pretty shocking ending. Wonder how the good guys/girls will get her out? Still don't understand what can they charge her with??? 

[Noreaster]

An ehh episode.  I don't give a damn about Maia.  Her family is scum and she is weak and dumb.  Having her all of a sudden stand up to others didn't come across naturally at all.  The case of the week had so many holes.  Why wouldn't the DOJ immediately hand over the malware file to the FBI or whatever team specializes in cyber terrorism cases?  It's really kind of laughable to have Marissa and that other investigator be the ones to figure out what was going on.  I don't care about the Diane/Kurt relationship. Kurt has become a pretty one-dimensional character and I don't remember feeling this way on The Good Wife. 

[dippydee]

I quite liked it. I enjoyed seeing something other than startled deer from Maia (though that look is probably going to be coming back because her parents continue to be awful people). I also laughed a little at Lucca and Maia teasing back and forth over being each other's lawyers. I guess it's Lucca's turn again next season.

On the whole I liked more episodes than I disliked. I guess next season, more Elsbeth and less Kresteva please.

[riprock]

I am still eagerly awaiting some freaking sustained character development for the new characters. Hopefully Maia transforms into something more watchable over the break and they give Barbara something to do. The case of the week stuff is usually interesting, but it's not what keeps me thinking after the show is over!

[Ladybyrd]

I loved it! I was surprised how well they carried off the CotW while tying up most of the season's loose ends. 

Christine Baranski was magnificent, and Diane/Kurt make my heart sing.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Still don't understand what can they charge her with??? 

Perjury. She had denied under oath that she knew about the Ponzi scheme before it became public. However, it turned out Maia did strongly suspect it because she wouldn't let her girlfriend's parents invest in her parents' company. Maia also lied about the doctor appointments her mother was supposedly taking her to when instead she was having trysts with Maia's uncle, the third leg of the scheme. Also, Maia's parents set up a charity in Maia's name which they used to funnel money into so they could try to "hide" it from the SEC. Maia claimed not to have known it was a family slush fund but now the situation has become "well, if you lied about that thing why should we believe about this thing?" situation. I don't know how well it's going to fly though because it seems to me they mainly came after her in revenge because they couldn't get her father.

The ending of this episode was probably the first time I really felt bad for Maia. It must hit her hard to know that her father sold her out to save himself. She's long been little more than a shield for Harry and Lenore Rindell to hide behind while they do their dirt and they persist in using her any way they think they can get away with.

[SeanC]

3 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Perjury. She had denied under oath that she knew about the Ponzi scheme before it became public. However, it turned out Maia did strongly suspect it because she wouldn't let her girlfriend's parents invest in her parents' company. Maia also lied about the doctor appointments her mother was supposedly taking her to when instead she was having trysts with Maia's uncle, the third leg of the scheme.

None of that is remotely capable of supporting a perjury prosecution.

In a remotely realistic setting, these charges would be immediately thrown out.  There's no possibility that a jury could conclude Maia was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because she misremembered some meetings involving her mother from almost a decade earlier.

[Joimiaroxeu]

I'm not a lawyer and don't vouch for the legal feasibility of going after her for perjury. But that seems to be the case Jane Lynch's character was making. Odds are good that we'll see next season how much of a fail that approach will be since the show likely isn't going to send one of their lead characters to prison. Plus, I'm wondering how they'll even be able to seat an impartial jury since the case has already been pretty much tried in the media. And again, I don't know how the prosecution will be able to avoid having it look like they're just going after Maia in revenge because the real villain, her father, went on the lam.

[orza]

Unless Maia's arrest was (hopefully) a way to write the character off the show. The Ponzi scheme story line seems to be at an end so there is no need for Maia as a character any more. She is not the main character so what would they do with her? She would just take screen time away from more interesting characters. I want to a major story arc centered around Barbara and more of Diane and Adrian working together. Marissa and Jay make a good team for entertaining B plots.

[ciprus]

I feel like this show hasn't really settled for me. I had high hopes for it, but they haven't done a very good job at establishing the new characters. I want to like Maia but she is too much of a wet blanket. I agree that Barbara is tragically underused.

Henry Rindell is such a self pitying asshole. I hope he isn't around next season.

For the first time I felt some kind of genuine connection between Lucca and Paul Ryan. For the main romantic coupling on this show they have surprisingly little chemistry.

[TimWil]

I realize the episode's title was "Chaos" but what was with the law firm constantly resembling Grand Central Station at rush hour? Way too many extras dashing back and forth all the time. They might like to dial that back a bit for Season 2.

[LadyMustang65]

17 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Perjury. She had denied under oath that she knew about the Ponzi scheme before it became public. However, it turned out Maia did strongly suspect it because she wouldn't let her girlfriend's parents invest in her parents' company. Maia also lied about the doctor appointments her mother was supposedly taking her to when instead she was having trysts with Maia's uncle, the third leg of the scheme. Also, Maia's parents set up a charity in Maia's name which they used to funnel money into so they could try to "hide" it from the SEC. Maia claimed not to have known it was a family slush fund but now the situation has become "well, if you lied about that thing why should we believe about this thing?" situation. I don't know how well it's going to fly though because it seems to me they mainly came after her in revenge because they couldn't get her father.

 

This is what frustrated me about this whole silly line.  They have no *proof* that she lied about anything.  This whole charge is based on the Lynch character's assertion that whenever someone says "the truth is" that it's not the truth.  I can just see how ridiculously that would play out in front of a judge.  The reality is that Maia did not *know* what was going on.  She knew her parents were acting a little weird at times, and she may have suspected everything was not as it seemed with the fund, but she did not actually *know* anything.  And the idea that you don't want to mix family and finances is a pretty sound one, so as long as she sticks to her guns, they can't prove a darn thing.  Because she didn't actually *know* anything.   I had really hoped that her father was going to go to jail, and we could let this subplot die a natural death because it's a drag now.  We know her father is worse than the scum of the earth, and presumably her mother and her uncle aren't too much better.  But the gymnastics they are going through to try to pin something on Maia is absurd and ridiculous.  The only saving grace at this point is if they bring back Elsbeth to defend Maia.  At least she's always entertaining.

[Medicine Crow]

3 hours ago, LadyMustang65 said:

This is what frustrated me about this whole silly line.  They have no *proof* that she lied about anything.  This whole charge is based on the Lynch character's assertion that whenever someone says "the truth is" that it's not the truth.  I can just see how ridiculously that would play out in front of a judge.  The reality is that Maia did not *know* what was going on.  She knew her parents were acting a little weird at times, and she may have suspected everything was not as it seemed with the fund, but she did not actually *know* anything.  And the idea that you don't want to mix family and finances is a pretty sound one, so as long as she sticks to her guns, they can't prove a darn thing.  Because she didn't actually *know* anything.   I had really hoped that her father was going to go to jail, and we could let this subplot die a natural death because it's a drag now.  We know her father is worse than the scum of the earth, and presumably her mother and her uncle aren't too much better.  But the gymnastics they are going through to try to pin something on Maia is absurd and ridiculous.  The only saving grace at this point is if they bring back Elsbeth to defend Maia.  At least she's always entertaining.

I totally agree!!

[Ms Blue Jay]

I liked the episode and in fact I liked the whole season.  Rose Leslie's acting kind of bugs me but eh.

If they are implying that Kurt cheated on Diane it just seems so not believable.  Although.... maybe I am just naive.

On 4/16/2017 at 8:29 PM, Joimiaroxeu said:

The ending of this episode was probably the first time I really felt bad for Maia. It must hit her hard to know that her father sold her out to save himself. She's long been little more than a shield for Harry and Lenore Rindell to hide behind while they do their dirt and they persist in using her any way they think they can get away with.

This is really disgusting, yeah.

I don't "like" Marissa in that I wouldn't like her in real life, but so far as a television character I think she's enjoyable enough.

[dr pepper]

Well, Milo will be happy with this episode.

But in real life, prosecutors are supposed to be savvy enough to know that you don't stick a strange thumb drive into a regular computer. You give it to cyber forensics and they put it in a non networked unit with an operating system emulator and maybe a sandbox on top of that. If real officials did what they did on the show, they'd be fired for incompetence.

On 4/16/2017 at 5:00 PM, Ladybyrd said:

Christine Baranski was magnificent

She always is.

[ciprus]

On 17 april 2017 at 6:35 AM, SeanC said:

None of that is remotely capable of supporting a perjury prosecution.

In a remotely realistic setting, these charges would be immediately thrown out.  There's no possibility that a jury could conclude Maia was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because she misremembered some meetings involving her mother from almost a decade earlier.

I won't pretend to be knowledgeable in law at all, but I just read a completely underrated article that said that you can get up to five years for lying to a federal agent. Don't know if they have enough proof to convict her, though. It seems a bit far fetched.

Edited April 18, 2017 by ciprus

[SeanC]

14 minutes ago, ciprus said:

I won't pretend to be knowledgeable in law at all, but I just read a completely underrated article that said that you can get up to five years for lying to a federal agent. 

Yes, you can certainly be convicted for lying to a federal agent.

My point was that they have no evidence she lied about anything, just the personal opinion of one agent.

[wendyg]

The show is advertised with the images of Christine Baranski, Cush Jumbo, and Rose Leslie. That makes it highly unlikely any of them will be dispensed with. Which is a pity because they're wasting Erica Tazel, and given the developing Will-and-Diane-ness of Diane and Adrian, her character doesn't really have a function.

Looks to me like they tacked the final scene on once they knew the show was being renewed. If it hadn't been, they could have ended with Amy coming home for dinner.

[orza]

The agent asked a bunch of leading questions that she already knew the answers to, like the doctor appointments. She already knew whether or not Maia had been at those appointments presumably because she had already verified that information with the doctor's office.

The agent is not wrong that when someone begins a sentence with "The truth is ..." what comes next is anything but the truth. It's biased opinion, wild speculation or, as in this case, an outright lie. Another such red flag phrase is "To be fair ..." Those phrases are used when people have no interest in being truthful or fair.

One could be charitable and interpret Maia saying she was at an appointment she was in fact not at as having a faulty memory, but taken with the weaselly "The truth is ..." answer the agent could also see it as a deliberate lie, which she obviously did.

[SeanC]

13 minutes ago, orza said:

The agent is not wrong that when someone begins a sentence with "The truth is ..." what comes next is anything but the truth. It's biased opinion, wild speculation or, as in this case, an outright lie. Another such red flag phrase is "To be fair ..." Those phrases are used when people have no interest in being truthful or fair.

One could be charitable and interpret Maia saying she was at an appointment she was in fact not at as having a faulty memory, but taken with the weaselly "The truth is ..." answer the agent could also see it as a deliberate lie, which she obviously did.

The agent is perfectly entitled to conclude that Maia is lying based on that, if she wanted; a lot of people would.  That still isn't real evidence of perjury, and realistically the charge would be immediately dismissed by the judge (well, realistically, the government wouldn't even have bothered to file a charge).

[auntiemel]

I also use phrases like "The truth is" or "To be fair" as a way to soften or emphasize what I'm about to say if I know the audience isn't automatically receptive. I actually just used the "To be fair" one on Facebook, when people (author colleagues) were poking fun at an article that said you could write a book in three weeks. I said: To be fair, we don't know that the article's author was talking about a fiction book. A timeline like that is more realistic for non-fiction, especially if you already have expert knowledge in the topic.

It was a way to semantically signal that I was going to share an unpopular opinion, or at least something contrary to what the reader might expect.

"The truth is" can be used the same way. I've seen it used often, even on this board, in cases where a lot of people are asking why a certain character reacted a certain way, and someone will say something along the lines of: The truth is, people in XYZ circumstance often react like that due to being in shock (or whatever other reason).

It's a conversational buffer between listener expectation and what you are about to say. It doesn't necessarily signal a lie.

Edited April 19, 2017 by auntiemel

[kieyra]

I was coming to more or less what @auntiemel said, although I guess we're getting off topic: I use "to be fair" when making a counterpoint or devil's advocate argument. 

(As a further O/T aside, there is indeed a community of authors who are big on the 'write a fiction novel in 3-4 weeks' thing. And they publish them on Amazon, and people buy them. I'll keep chugging along at one book every year, whatever, sigh.)

I'm trying to think of whether I use 'the truth is ...' as a misdirection when lying, but I don't think I actually use that phrase. I think I would use it when the truth was something unpleasant. e.g., "The truth is, I can't stand being around her." "The truth is, I don't want to be at this company anymore." etc. 

So I guess overall ... I'm calling BS on the procedural 'tells'. It probably falls into the same category as "people look down and to the left when they're lying", or whichever direction that one is.

Topic ... I stuck it through the whole season, which is more than happened for me with BrainDead, although to be fair (heh) that show was cancelled before I caught up, so I didn't have much motivation. Agree they have to do something else with the Rindells. I think that was just one arc too many. Just because Diane lost all her money, which was always a questionable inciting incident because she's smarter than that, it doesn't mean we need a glimpse into the family behind a Ponzi scheme. Maia's parents are irredeemable, Rose Leslie is struggling a bit with range (although she's really only being asked to do two things: "aghast" and "scrappy young lawyer"). There's also something squicky about watching these financial scumbags feel sorry for themselves. Over it.

More Elsbeth, less (insert super irritating antagonist here). I do have to give the Kings credit for creating truly loathsome antagonists. The troll guy is pitch perfect, and he makes me want to throw something at the screen.  They've done an incredible job of making the 'troll'-ness of the internet in general into living flesh. (I don't know if he's based on a real person--I keep my internetting very compartmentalized these days. It makes it easier to believe the world isn't ending. I can't think of anyone but Perez Hilton, but that's obviously a different kind of scumbag.) 

I know people keep saying they want to know more about Barbara, but I also want to know more about Lucca. I didn't watch the last season of TGW, so maybe that's part of the problem. They just need to tighten things up a bit, and a first big step would be jettisoning the Rindell family. I mean, Maia can stay but she needs a new storyline, and to bring more Ygritte and less of the Downtown Abbey chambermaid.

Edited April 19, 2017 by kieyra

[Miles]

On 17.4.2017 at 0:36 AM, Noreaster said:

The case of the week had so many holes.  Why wouldn't the DOJ immediately hand over the malware file to the FBI or whatever team specializes in cyber terrorism cases?

The whole episode I was thinking "why are you trying to sue somebody over this when it was your dumb asses who plugged it into a networked computer? You should be frantically trying to cover your asses right now and sweep this under the rug, not have a public trail!"

I mean seriously, you know you have malware on a stick and you don't plug it into an airgaped computer specially preped for forensic analysis, but in your normal, networked work computer? Who is that dumb? How are you a DA and not working a field somewhere with that IQ in the low 50s?

On 17.4.2017 at 0:36 AM, Noreaster said:

I don't care about the Diane/Kurt relationship. Kurt has become a pretty one-dimensional character and I don't remember feeling this way on The Good Wife.

At the end of the good wife I even had the impression that Kurt hadn't slept with his protege, that it was just a tactic of the lawyers to discredit him and that Diane jsut couldn't watch them destroying the man she loved with something that wasn't true.

I'm sad that I was wrong. It doesn't really fit Kurt and it made their relationship very awkward.

On 17.4.2017 at 9:38 PM, LadyMustang65 said:

This is what frustrated me about this whole silly line.  They have no *proof* that she lied about anything.  This whole charge is based on the Lynch character's assertion that whenever someone says "the truth is" that it's not the truth.  I can just see how ridiculously that would play out in front of a judge.  The reality is that Maia did not *know* what was going on.  She knew her parents were acting a little weird at times, and she may have suspected everything was not as it seemed with the fund, but she did not actually *know* anything. 

I was kinda fine with it when they were just preassuring Maia's father with it. I figured they knew that what they had would never stand up in court, because they had no proof, but that it was good enough to scare her old man. But now they are actually going foreward with this and are charging her? Bah humbug!

16 hours ago, kieyra said:

They've done an incredible job of making the 'troll'-ness of the internet in general into living flesh. (I don't know if he's based on a real person--I keep my internetting very compartmentalized these days. It makes it easier to believe the world isn't ending. I can't think of anyone but Perez Hilton, but that's obviously a different kind of scumbag.) 

He was pretty clearly based on Milo Yiannopoulos. Even to the point where he called Dianne mother, while the real Milo likes to call Trump daddy. The portrail wasn't bad, but the guy was a little old, imo.

The main thing I took issue with is that they portraid the chumhum equivalent to reddit (with reddit's exact design) as a stronghold for trolls like fourchan, which it most certainly is not, even if some of the media tries to protrait it that way from time to time.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Miles

[kieyra]

Quote

 

He was pretty clearly based on Milo Yiannopoulos. Even to the point where he called Dianne mother, while the real Milo likes to call Trump daddy. The portrail wasn't bad, but the guy was a little old, imo.

The main thing I took issue with is that they portraid the chumhum equivalent to reddit (with reddit's exact design) as a stronghold for trolls like fourchan, which it most certainly is not, even if some of the media tries to protrait it that way from time to time.

 

 

Thanks for the info. Sounds like someone I won't be googling.

As an aside--doesn't the real reddit also exist in the show universe now?

I think I've mentioned it in prior episode threads, but I was thinking about it again after this episode. I appreciate that the Kings try to take this stuff on, even when they don't get it quite right, because I've been worried for a few years now that the internet is going to bring down civilization. Yes, I realize this sounds enormously melodramatic, but it feels like everyone is at each other's throats. I mean, never mind shit like a power grid hack.

(Speaking of which ... how did everyone get home to their romantic, candlelit dinners if the traffic lights were down? I don't know about Chicago, but in my metro when there's a major outage (e.g., hurricane or ice storm), the traffic lights don't magically stay up. It seems like an outage in a major city would cause absolute chaos these days (hence the episode title, I thought), although there was that one in NY not long after 9/11 and I seem to recall everyone was surprised how peaceful it was. Not sure that would be true today.) 

[wendyg]

On 4/19/2017 at 2:27 AM, auntiemel said:

A timeline like that is more realistic for non-fiction, especially if you already have expert knowledge in the topic.

Only if you've already done a detailed outline and all the organization work, which is the time-consuming part.and have previously written large chunks of it and don't have to do much new research (I did a book like that in three months, taking a few days off every few weeks to work on something else). I think actually it's more realistic for *fiction* - and, as Kieyra says, there is an annual write-a-book-in-a-month fest (NaNoWrMo) in which everyone scrambles to write a whole novel in a month. *However*, anyone who's a professional writer would see that as a rough draft that would then take many more months of work to bring up to publishing standard. Only Isaac Asimov gets to publish his first draft without *any* changes, and he's dead. 

I use "to be fair" as AuntiMel does: to signal a dissenting opinion. I use "To be honest" as Kieyra does, to signal an unpleasant truth. Having said that, Jane Lynch's character may well believe her glib characterizations, and if you're in the position Maia was of being interrogated by a woman who is faking the folksy charm about events of which you have only the haziest recollection, you're likely to be intimidated enough to believe they have special insight into all your vulnerabilities. Which I guess is why Maia didn't simply say, "I really don't remember the details of gynecological appointments ten years ago. I just know I had them and my mom came to some of them." Which, btw: REALLY? That scenario is unimaginable to me...even at 18.

[kieyra]

4 hours ago, wendyg said:

Only if you've already done a detailed outline and all the organization work, which is the time-consuming part.and have previously written large chunks of it and don't have to do much new research (I did a book like that in three months, taking a few days off every few weeks to work on something else). I think actually it's more realistic for *fiction* - and, as Kieyra says, there is an annual write-a-book-in-a-month fest (NaNoWrMo) in which everyone scrambles to write a whole novel in a month. *However*, anyone who's a professional writer would see that as a rough draft that would then take many more months of work to bring up to publishing standard. Only Isaac Asimov gets to publish his first draft without *any* changes, and he's dead. 

(I just want to clarify ... I didn't mean "NaNoWriMo". I mean the people who are pumping out the Kindle Unlimited content. I've been in arguments with these people about whether you can produce a novel in a few weeks that is the same quality as one I spend a year on. They claim they can. I don't believe them. It ultimately doesn't matter, because the ones who have figured out how to market themselves and 'master the tropes' are pushing this stuff out faster than you would believe and people are buying it. A lot of them are making a lot more money on Amazon than the books you see on the tables in B&N. I'd link to some examples that are highly ranked on Amazon (SALES, not review ranking), where I know the author wrote the book that fast because they will post message board threads outlining their progress and marketing strategies, but it just depresses me. The publishing industry has been just as 'disrupted' as anything else.

Edited to add: I'm probably making a point that isn't relevant to the main debate happening. If so, sorry. And I know that there's at least a perceived difference between traditional publishing/respect and indie publishing, but believe me some of these indie authors are crying all the way to the bank.)

Edited April 20, 2017 by kieyra

[auntiemel]

Wow, my whole book example aside kind of took on an unintended life of its own. LOL. And I, also, don't want to take this too far afield, but since it was my example I figured I'd just chime back in one time.

The truth is (heh--see what I did there?), saying "How long does it take to write a book?" is kind of like saying "How long does it take to lose weight?" I mean...how much do you have to lose, and what are your methods? So, when I say "fiction" book, there's the spectrum from 150,000 word fantasy epic complete with worldbuilding down to 50,000 word cozy mystery or erotica set in the practical world. When I say "non-fiction" book, there's the spectrum from 500 page, original research historical thesis down to 75-page essential oils handbook written by an aromatherapist who already knows what they're talking about. It's a wide spectrum.

I've got one book I've been working on for almost five years, and who knows if I'll ever finish it. It might just be a creative exercise, ultimately. Or it might be something that takes me ten years. On the other end of the spectrum, I've got one that basically came to me fully formed in a dream, and I wrote it in a ten-day almost fugue state in which I didn't do much else but write...including sleep or eat. :) (Or shower...that's kind of a given. Heh.). The majority have been somewhere in between those two extremes. And then a good number have been under a pen name that my sister and I share, where we co-write, and that's a whole different process in itself! In the end, when I look at which titles did best, which sold best, which resonated most with readers, which were reviewed the highest, which made USA or NYT...there's no real rhyme or reason as far as time, process, etc. For me, at any rate. Some authors have that shit down to a science. I'm not self-disciplined enough to either figure out what my "science" might be, or to stick to it once I knew it, so I just do me. And I'm happy with that.

As far as bringing this post back to the topic at hand, that was a completely organic use of "the truth is" that I wrote unintentionally, and then noticed it once I was partway through the next paragraph. So, yep. It happens.

[Noreaster]

On 4/19/2017 at 3:02 PM, Miles said:

At the end of the good wife I even had the impression that Kurt hadn't slept with his protege, that it was just a tactic of the lawyers to discredit him and that Diane jsut couldn't watch them destroying the man she loved with something that wasn't true.

I'm sad that I was wrong. It doesn't really fit Kurt and it made their relationship very awkward.

Ugh, yes.  I felt that it was vague enough in TGW finale that viewers could take it different ways (my preferred interpretation was that Kurt did indeed sleep with that other woman but it was before he and Diane fully committed and married).  But TGF pretty much confirmed that Kurt cheated in the first couple of episodes and then in case it wasn't clear, well they confirmed it in this finale.  Bums me out.  Bums me out even more that Diane would stay with someone who cheated.  I feel the writers could have done more interesting things with the Kurt/Diane relationship like force them to work together despite being divorced (in a more organic way, not the lame "Kurt needs help with his speech" storyline and not this silly "Kurt is such a good person and gets hurt trying to prevent a kidnapping" plotline). And then maybe have the characters make their way back to each other eventually.  Oh well. 

Overall, on this season, I'm quite mixed.  I really enjoyed the first few episodes but that may have been because enough time had passed since TGW finale, that I was reminded of all the things I loved....the acting, the pacing, the humor, the music, etc.  But as a couple of others have mentioned this season, TGF is not really much different from TGW.  The issues that we saw in the last season or so of TGW still remain.  The writers ran out of ideas with what to do with the existing characters.  I don't know what the right formula is with spinoffs (the only one I watched is Frasier which took one character and completely changed the setting and surrounded him with new and very different characters).  Here on TGF, they brought over a few existing characters and then surrounded them with TGW dopplegangers (Adrian is like Will, Barbara is like Diane, Maia is like Alicia, Maia's parents are like Peter, Lucca was always like Kalinda).  And they all work in the same city with the same quirky lawyers and judges, the one-dimensional prosecutors, the oddball clients, etc.  

I'm sure I'll be back for the beginning of next season as there is a great deal that I enjoy and it's not a bad way to pass an hour.  However, if it remains very much the same old same old, I don't know how much longer I will stick around.  I don't want The Good Fight season 2 to basically be The Good Wife season 9.  

Edited April 22, 2017 by Noreaster

[love2lovebadtv]

On 4/16/2017 at 7:16 PM, dippydee said:

I quite liked it. I enjoyed seeing something other than startled deer from Maia (though that look is probably going to be coming back because her parents continue to be awful people). I also laughed a little at Lucca and Maia teasing back and forth over being each other's lawyers. I guess it's Lucca's turn again next season.

On the whole I liked more episodes than I disliked. I guess next season, more Elsbeth and less Kresteva please.

Yes, I was thrilled to see Maia applying the constructive criticism she got. Please, let her lose the lost deer look for good. I think Elsbeth is great and I'd love to see her more. Can't stand Matthew Perry's character. I had to force myself to remember him being on TGW and then I remembered why I didn't remember him on there - boring. 

On 4/17/2017 at 0:35 AM, SeanC said:

None of that is remotely capable of supporting a perjury prosecution.

In a remotely realistic setting, these charges would be immediately thrown out.  There's no possibility that a jury could conclude Maia was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because she misremembered some meetings involving her mother from almost a decade earlier.

That was my thinking, too. It seemed like this was all based on trickery. If that methodology is used in front of a jury, I'm sure they would see how pointless it was to try to discredit Maia based on inconsistent or inaccurate responses about what she did after school when she was 17. Give me a break! 

On 4/17/2017 at 10:25 PM, dr pepper said:

Well, Milo will be happy with this episode.

But in real life, prosecutors are supposed to be savvy enough to know that you don't stick a strange thumb drive into a regular computer. You give it to cyber forensics and they put it in a non networked unit with an operating system emulator and maybe a sandbox on top of that. If real officials did what they did on the show, they'd be fired for incompetence.

She always is.

Precisely. I was surprised at how quickly/easily people that drive just got popped into a DOJ computer, especially when it was made known what the deal was. They weren't expecting some legal files to be on that thumb drive; they knew about the malware and had no knowledge of the source of the thumb drive so why wouldn't they have a cyber forensics specialist check it out? Pure dumbness. 

On 4/18/2017 at 9:27 PM, auntiemel said:

I also use phrases like "The truth is" or "To be fair" as a way to soften or emphasize what I'm about to say if I know the audience isn't automatically receptive. I actually just used the "To be fair" one on Facebook, when people (author colleagues) were poking fun at an article that said you could write a book in three weeks. I said: To be fair, we don't know that the article's author was talking about a fiction book. A timeline like that is more realistic for non-fiction, especially if you already have expert knowledge in the topic.

It was a way to semantically signal that I was going to share an unpopular opinion, or at least something contrary to what the reader might expect.

"The truth is" can be used the same way. I've seen it used often, even on this board, in cases where a lot of people are asking why a certain character reacted a certain way, and someone will say something along the lines of: The truth is, people in XYZ circumstance often react like that due to being in shock (or whatever other reason).

It's a conversational buffer between listener expectation and what you are about to say. It doesn't necessarily signal a lie.

Same here. I feel like when I say, "the truth is" I'm about to unleash some raw honesty.

[WearyTraveler]

I think the show was ok, nothing groundbreaking, but good enough for Sunday nights.  My only problem with season 1 was that the main characters were always one step away from being jailed.  Someone was always after them.  It gets tiring after 4 episodes.  If they continue with that theme, they should change the name of the show to Lawyers in Peril, or Lawyers under Attack.... or something.

[Sandman]

On 2017-04-16 at 9:29 PM, Joimiaroxeu said:

Maia also lied about the doctor appointments her mother was supposedly taking her to when instead she was having trysts with Maia's uncle, the third leg of the scheme.

No, she didn't. She remembered that her mother was with her for some of the appointments at least, and she marked off the ones on Agent Sue Sylvester's list that she the thought she remembered; the fact that her recollection was inaccurate does not amount to perjury. This whole "Maia is a felon" plot point is beyond ridiculous.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Okay, maybe "lied" is a strong word but when she was going through her flashbacks she remembered seeing her mother and her uncle all but in a clinch at the doctor's office. At that point she was old enough to put together than something was fishy about the appointments. Again, I'm not claiming it was perjury, I'm just saying that was the case Jane Lynch's character seems to be trying to make (and probably part of the reason why they came to arrest her after her father skipped town). I imagine we'll get to see Lucca rip the whole case to shreds next season.

[love2lovebadtv]

4 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Okay, maybe "lied" is a strong word but when she was going through her flashbacks she remembered seeing her mother and her uncle all but in a clinch at the doctor's office. At that point she was old enough to put together than something was fishy about the appointments. Again, I'm not claiming it was perjury, I'm just saying that was the case Jane Lynch's character seems to be trying to make (and probably part of the reason why they came to arrest her after her father skipped town). I imagine we'll get to see Lucca rip the whole case to shreds next season.

I got the impression that it wasn't clear what she remembered and what she didn't. Upon being asked to recall events of 10 years prior - mundane events like doctor appointments, etc. it can be easy to mix things up. Sometimes you start to remember things differently once a memory has been dug up. 

We, as the audience, have the benefit of seeing those flashbacks in her head. We have also seen Maia's surprise when she found her mother with her uncle. And again, we have the benefit of seeing Maia surprise at all of this - not like someone who knew this could eventually happen. Ms. Folksy has none of these visions so I can't figure out the basis of these trumped-up charges (I always wanted to stay that). 

[Sandman]

On 2017-04-18 at 11:34 PM, kieyra said:

I'm trying to think of whether I use 'the truth is ...' as a misdirection when lying, but I don't think I actually use that phrase. I think I would use it when the truth was something unpleasant. e.g., "The truth is, I can't stand being around her." "The truth is, I don't want to be at this company anymore." etc. 

Agent Sue (whatever, show, I'm still calling her that) and her belief that "the truth is ..." is an immediate marker for falsehood made me think of that quotation from Shaw to the effect that the liar's punishment isn't that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.

Also, show, it does no good to call Scott Bryce's character Rupert, or whatever: I'm still thinking "Craig!" in my head whenever he shows up on screen. I ain't sorry. (I don't think he looks like a "Rupert," anyhow.)

Edited April 24, 2017 by Sandman

[love2lovebadtv]

10 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

I think the show was ok, nothing groundbreaking, but good enough for Sunday nights.  My only problem with season 1 was that the main characters were always one step away from being jailed.  Someone was always after them.  It gets tiring after 4 episodes.  If they continue with that theme, they should change the name of the show to Lawyers in Peril, or Lawyers under Attack.... or something.

Yea, at least wait till season 2 before you start arresting all the characters lol.

But seriously, it's too much.  The shock of the arrests wanes quickly.

On 4/16/2017 at 6:21 PM, riprock said:

I am still eagerly awaiting some freaking sustained character development for the new characters. Hopefully Maia transforms into something more watchable over the break and they give Barbara something to do. The case of the week stuff is usually interesting, but it's not what keeps me thinking after the show is over!

I'm very intrigued by Barbara. I have never seen this actress before but I think she's good. Apart from that, I just want to know more about the characters. Does she feel threatened by all the changes? Offended? What's her deal? I agree - character development is much needed. 

[Sandman]

Is it too late to say that I thought from the beginning that Jason Biggs' character was behind the whole schemozzle? He claimed, without offering anything like proof, that he was being set up. But, er, nobody at the firm questioned any of it until after Lucca was caught up in the US Attorney's ridonkulous dragnet? (Because they just jack some mystery drive into their network without thinking about it? O--kay...)

But Diane and company put aside their well-founded misgivings based on previous experience with the shifty Mr. Bitcoin because, well, he literally gave them a big sack of money.

It's getting harder and harder to care about this firm full of greedy, stupid people.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Sandman

[dinkysquid]

On 4/23/2017 at 11:57 PM, love2lovebadtv said:

Can't stand Matthew Perry's character. I had to force myself to remember him being on TGW and then I remembered why I didn't remember him on there - boring. 

Exactly. Why is he there? 

It's good to see Diane again. She always looks so polished, elegant and beautifully put together. I know...shallow comment. But she does.

I don't know about this show. I agree that we need some character development. Maia wasn't my favorite in Game of Thrones and I'm kinda struggling to like her here. I know it's a stupid sticking point, but her voice...it bothers me. 

I am up for a Season Two though.

[love2lovebadtv]

3 hours ago, dinkysquid said:

Exactly. Why is he there? 

It's good to see Diane again. She always looks so polished, elegant and beautifully put together. I know...shallow comment. But she does.

I don't know about this show. I agree that we need some character development. Maia wasn't my favorite in Game of Thrones and I'm kinda struggling to like her here. I know it's a stupid sticking point, but her voice...it bothers me. 

I am up for a Season Two though.

Then I guess I'm shallow, too, because I love Diane's polish and elegance. Her style is awesome. Not familiar with the Maia actress. I had to Google her but so far I'm not impressed. But I don't dislike or hate her so I'll keep watching. Im curious to see what happens with her. There are lots of stories left to tell so I'm definitely in for season 2.

[LadyMustang65]

On ‎4‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 1:29 PM, Sandman said:

But Diane and company put aside their well-founded misgivings based on previous experience with the shifty Mr. Bitcoin because, well, he literally gave them a big sack of money.

It's getting harder and harder to care about this firm full of greedy, stupid people.

I don't fault them for that.  Unfortunately, it's the big sacks of money that keep the doors open.  It's been suggested (at least that's the impression I've gotten) that this firm does a fair amount of pro bono work, and they take on 'cause' cases that may or may not pay off for them.  They have to do the work before they find out if they'll get paid.  That's why someone like Neil Gross is so appealing as a client - he represents a steady stream of income that allows them to do the work they *want* to do. 

[Sandman]

It's not their acceptance of the big sack of money that bothers me; it's the nullification of all critical thinking that followed after. (Well, okay, and also the fact that the show is unsubtle enough to build a scene around said literal stacks of cash.)

[NutMeg]

The weirdest thing, for me, was that guy who, after being told that a thumb drive contains a malware, plucks it into the system. The heck? He should be the one on trial!

[loki567]

Strange show. On one hand, very watchable. I banged through most of the season in two weeks, which is pretty good for me. On the other hand, very shallow. Felt like there was almost no character development through the first ten episodes. Somebody else made the point, they wanted us to feel sympathy for Maia's problems but that's impossible when there's nothing to a character beyond those problems. She seemed very detached from the rest of the cast. Even her being lesbian was barely a factor, I wouldn't be surprised if the writers just wanted some possible coverage for LGBT representation. 

Considering she was suppose to be the lead, Diane was brushed aside most of the season. Lucca was defined almost exclusively to her relationship with Colin. Adrien was the same smart and sympathetic figure he was from episode one to episode ten. And I honestly had to look up Erica Tazel's character name. Barbara.  

So I'll be back and I hope things get a little deeper and more complicated. 

[John Potts]

OK, I have to wonder if DAs REALLY spend most of their time going after law firms that tackle police brutality cases. Surely that's going to mean challenging the people who are best equipped to fight back? Prosecute a few more hookers and low level dealers if you want to make your figures look better!

On ‎18‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 3:25 AM, dr pepper said:

in real life, prosecutors are supposed to be savvy enough to know that you don't stick a strange thumb drive into a regular computer. You give it to cyber forensics and they put it in a non networked unit with an operating system emulator and maybe a sandbox on top of that.

And on the subject of "Crazy things that would never happen", you'd hope the government would be more concerned with the preventing the power outage than prosecuting the lawyer for handing over the virus to the DoJ. Given how the firm won their Grand Jury case by making it look like the State was deliberately targeting a black firm, exactly how will it look when they learn that the SAs not only had prior knowledge of the attack, it was their own computers that got it online. "You see, we wanted to bankrupt this law firm that kept suing us, so when they brought us information about the imminent cyber attack, we decided to use it to bring them down rather than work with them. Unfortunately, we're idiots and accidentally caused the attack that we were trying to prevent. Sorry about all the X hours of blackout as a result. But it was all aimed at keeping your taxes down!" They do have to get re-elected, right?

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 4:34 AM, kieyra said:

I do have to give the Kings credit for creating truly loathsome antagonists. The troll guy is pitch perfect, and he makes me want to throw something at the screen.

I agree he is quite brilliantly loathsome. Particularly liked his "You really should have conspired with somebody more trustworthy!" line to Mr Bitcoin when he revealed the setup.

On ‎20‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 0:41 PM, wendyg said:

Only Isaac Asimov gets to publish his first draft without *any* changes, and he's dead.

Yeah, he's slowed down a lot since he died.

[dr pepper]

8 hours ago, John Potts said:

OK, I have to wonder if DAs REALLY spend most of their time going after law firms that tackle police brutality cases. Surely that's going to mean challenging the people who are best equipped to fight back? Prosecute a few more hookers and low level dealers if you want to make your figures look better!

And on the subject of "Crazy things that would never happen", you'd hope the government would be more concerned with the preventing the power outage than prosecuting the lawyer for handing over the virus to the DoJ. Given how the firm won their Grand Jury case by making it look like the State was deliberately targeting a black firm, exactly how will it look when they learn that the SAs not only had prior knowledge of the attack, it was their own computers that got it online. "You see, we wanted to bankrupt this law firm that kept suing us, so when they brought us information about the imminent cyber attack, we decided to use it to bring them down rather than work with them. Unfortunately, we're idiots and accidentally caused the attack that we were trying to prevent. Sorry about all the X hours of blackout as a result. But it was all aimed at keeping your taxes down!" They do have to get re-elected, right?

Quote

  On 4/20/2017 at 4:41 AM, wendyg said:

Only Isaac Asimov gets to publish his first draft without *any* changes, and he's dead.

I agree he is quite brilliantly loathsome. Particularly liked his "You really should have conspired with somebody more trustworthy!" line to Mr Bitcoin when he revealed the setup.

Yeah, he's slowed down a lot since he died.

yeah, Asimov died, output immediately stopped. L Ron Hubbard died, wrote a 10 volume pseudo epic. Asimov fans got robbed!

[John Potts]

15 minutes ago, dr pepper said:

yeah, Asimov died, output immediately stopped.

No, it didn't - Forward, the Foundation came out posthumously (given he produced bout 10 books/year, I wouldn't be surprised if there were others). Still, his output has been pathetic for the last 20 years!

I did like the romance between Diane and her husband - it was entirely believable that she rushed to his side when she thought he was injured/killed and that she wanted to spend the night. I like the fact that the show acknowledges that people over 50 still have feelings (and can even have sex) - it gives me hope!

[betha]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:25 PM, dr pepper said:

 

Well, Milo will be happy with this episode.

But in real life, prosecutors are supposed to be savvy enough to know that you don't stick a strange thumb drive into a regular computer. You give it to cyber forensics and they put it in a non networked unit with an operating system emulator and maybe a sandbox on top of that. If real officials did what they did on the show, they'd be fired for incompetence.

On 4/16/2017 at 8:00 PM, Ladybyrd said:

 

Agree. Government agencies have extensive training around not putting outside thumb drives in government computers. Everyone has to take it. 

Edited July 20, 2017 by betha

[txhorns79]

I watched the first season on Amazon, and coming to the end, there are some good strengths and some glaring weaknesses.  

One thing I want to tell the writers is that trying to make Maia into Alicia-light doesn't work.  Maia is not a well developed character, and the stakes for her are so low (except for the bogus perjury charge) as to not really matter.  Like when they briefly suggested during the episode that she could be fired, I just shrugged.   I think they could drop Maia next season and the show would be just fine without her.   

On the positive side, I could watch Marissa and Jay as investigators any day.  I enjoy their camaraderie and the actors have a nice chemistry. 

I also liked Diane and Adrien, and presume they are being set up as the new Will and Diane, since Barbara barely did anything this season. 

Edited October 26, 2017 by txhorns79

[Anela]

Wow, her father really sold her out. What a dick.