or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Suits' on USA HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Suits' on USA HD

post #1 of 226
Thread Starter 
No thread on this show? Though the premise is a bit creaky and long in the tooth the actors make it work. The casting director got it right.

I found it interesting that Mike who stared off as a know it all quickly stumbled in the real world, not something you see too much on any show. Usually the kid that knows it all ends up knowing it all and running things, gladly not so here.

Looking forward to the character development as well as the storylines.
post #2 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

No thread on this show? Though the premise is a bit creaky and long in the tooth the actors make it work. The casting director got it right.

I found it interesting that Mike who stared off as a know it all quickly stumbled in the real world, not something you see too much on any show. Usually the kid that knows it all ends up knowing it all and running things, gladly not so here.

Looking forward to the character development as well as the storylines.

Hmm interesting. I been having a problem with USA Network shows as they are too milquetoast for my tastes.
post #3 of 226
USA TODAY sure did not think much of this show.
post #4 of 226
I thought the show was OK. Coming on after Burn Notice will help me when it comes to watching this show. I liked the fact Harvey called Matt out for keeping the briefcase. A lot of shows would have kept the overcomplicated plot device for no reason. It answered the obvious question with an acceptable answer.
post #5 of 226
I thought the Suits pilot was good enough to warrant watching a few more episodes. I always enjoy Gina Torres and her performance in Suits as the high powered senior partner was no exception. I didn't quite know how to take, Harvey, the closer lawyer. At his worst he reminded me of a younger, although no less phony and obnoxious, version of The Most Interesting Man in the World in the beer commercials. I was completely unimpressed by the actor who played the brash young test taker who promoted a job in Harvey's firm. I was glad to see Rick Hoffman as the odious Louis Litt. Nobody is better than Hoffman at portraying sleazy, treacherous, executives, or in this case, lawyers.

Despite its weaknesses, the pilot kept me just interested enough to come back and see a few more episodes.
post #6 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I thought the Suits pilot was good enough to warrant watching a few more episodes. I always enjoy Gina Torres and her performance in Suits as the high powered senior partner was no exception. I didn't quite know how to take, Harvey, the closer lawyer. At his worst he reminded me of a younger, although no less phony and obnoxious, version of The Most Interesting Man in the World in the beer commercials. I was completely unimpressed by the actor who played the brash young test taker who promoted a job in Harvey's firm. I was glad to see Rick Hoffman as the odious Louis Litt. Nobody is better than Hoffman at portraying sleazy, treacherous, executives, or in this case, lawyers.

Despite its weaknesses, the pilot kept me just interested enough to come back and see a few more episodes.

Thanks for the concise review. I think I'll give it a try.
post #7 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey mo View Post

Thanks for the concise review. I think I'll give it a try.

You are welcome. As indicated in my earlier post, the Suits pilot had its fun moments.
post #8 of 226
Just slightly better than the other USA programs. I will check out the next episode but not hoping for anything one way or another.
post #9 of 226
^^^ Yeah, pretty much how I feel about it. I was ready to ditch after 10-15 min. but stuck it out and liked it marginally better toward the end.
post #10 of 226
I was ready to dismiss it until the main character decided to quit. When his boss laid into him was when I decide to give it a chance.
post #11 of 226
I liked it but as I kept watching I was wondering how long the writers are going to wait before it's revealed that the guy doesn't have a law degree. I'll keep watching bc its a easy, breezy show and I like that.
post #12 of 226
I enjoyed the pilot, but thought it overly long. The regular one hour format should help things along. I'm not hooked yet, but plan to give it a few episodes.
post #13 of 226
I love it. I think it is one of the best show of the summer.
post #14 of 226
The premise of this show is completely preposterous. Every case this guy is taking on would be declared "null and void". Not to mention he could be sent to prison for impersonating an attorney and the real lawyer would be disbarred. What's next -- someone impersonating a surgeon?
post #15 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Milton View Post

The premise of this show is completely preposterous. Every case this guy is taking on would be declared "null and void". Not to mention he could be sent to prison for impersonating an attorney and the real lawyer would be disbarred. What's next -- someone impersonating a surgeon?

As long as the lead attorney of record in a trial passed that state's bar exam, his/her assistants need not.
post #16 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

As long as the lead attorney of record in a trial passed that state's bar exam, his/her assistants need not.

As long as the assistant is not represented to the court to be an attorney. The term "attorney" (in Ohio at least) is defined as one who is admitted to practice before the highest court in the state. Being "admitted to practice" may (or may not) include passing the state's bar exam.

The most famous assistant sitting at counsel table has to be Della Street.
post #17 of 226
But he's already passed the bar ... numerous times.
post #18 of 226
Am I the only one that reads the topic header as Sluts? Something's wrong (or right) with my brain. Wishful thinking I guess.
post #19 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVChallenged View Post

But he's already passed the bar ... numerous times.

He should not have been allowed to take the bar exam since he did not graduate from an accredited law school. I have to assume he did not pass the required background check.
post #20 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey mo View Post

He should not have been allowed to take the bar exam since he did not graduate from an accredited law school. I have to assume he did not pass the required background check.

Depends on the state. There are several (California and New York, for example), where graduating from law school is not a prerequisite for taking the bar.
post #21 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikey mo View Post

As long as the assistant is not represented to the court to be an attorney. The term "attorney" (in Ohio at least) is defined as one who is admitted to practice before the highest court in the state. Being "admitted to practice" may (or may not) include passing the state's bar exam.

The most famous assistant sitting at counsel table has to be Della Street.

About half of OJ's lawyers' assistants were not lawyers.
post #22 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I was glad to see Rick Hoffman as the odious Louis Litt. Nobody is better than Hoffman at portraying sleazy, treacherous, executives, or in this case, lawyers.

+1

I liked the first two and hope they can keep it fresh for the rest of the summer.
post #23 of 226
The premise of the show is incredibly absurd and it is not at all realistic, but few legal dramas are. Law & Order is the only one I've ever watched that's been in the same ballpark as reality. David E. Kelley puts on a good show sometimes, but as a rule legal dramas are as reflective of the practice of law as CSI is reflective of the study of forensic science (that is to say, not at all reflective).

That said, when they aren't drowning you in terrible cliches, this show isn't half bad. I thought the second episode was significantly stronger than the pilot, which was mostly a mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

As long as the lead attorney of record in a trial passed that state's bar exam, his/her assistants need not.

The kid has filed several motions already, hasn't he? I would assume that they were filed using his boss's bar identification, but even still, given that his boss never looked them over, they were all unlicensed practice. They are neck deep in unlicensed practice and his boss would be disbarred in no time flat. As I recall, the kid's interactions with the client and witnesses in his pro bono case clearly misrepresented him as a lawyer.

4000 page briefs? No such thing. And worse, proofing a document that size would literally take one associate months. Going through all those boxes in a single night? Impossible. You could staff five attorneys on those boxes and they wouldn't be done in a night. Patent filings? Those can only be done by patent lawyers. General practice lawyers like these guys aren't even admitted to the patent bar so there's another layer of unlicensed practice. And, most important, no partner who planned to keep his job would ever keep throwing filings at a first year associate and tell him to "figure it out." The client would go ballistic, and the filing would be screwed up, and millions of dollars would get flushed down the toilet.

Point is, this show isn't even close to realistic and I have to assume it isn't concerned with trying to be realistic. If it is, they need to hire some new consultants, so I wouldn't look too closely at anything law-related going on.

To me, the most interesting choice was giving the paralegal a cushy window office while strangely appearing to seat the actual lawyers in bullpen-style cubicles. Of all the choices they've made on this show when it comes to disregarding reality, I find that by far the most out of place--particularly given how much they have emphasized already importance of a lawyer's appearance, dress, and office space.

Although there are certainly many star paralegals out there who go on to become highly successful lawyers, none of them are ever treated as anything more than glorified secretaries while they are still paralegals. In the world of the law firm, there are two classes of individuals: lawyers and non-lawyers. Disappointing and unfortunate, but true. Paralegals are the latter; they would never get window offices if lawyers are stationed at cubicles. Paralegals don't generally do legal research, except the absolute most basic kind; in firms of this size/prestige, they'd exist mostly to manage files ("case management") and occasionally cite-check briefs. I suppose it's not totally unrealistic for a paralegal to help out with research on a pro bono case though.

One last thing: law firms don't do drug tests on lawyers. (At least, not high profile firms like they're presenting this one as.)
post #24 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73shark View Post

I liked the first two and hope they can keep it fresh for the rest of the summer.

I am our of town visiting family over the holiday weekend so won't get a chance to see the second episode until later in the week. I am looking for forward to doing so because I thought the first show was pretty entertaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by URFloorMatt View Post

The premise of the show is incredibly absurd and it is not at all realistic, but few legal dramas are. Law & Order is the only one I've ever watched that's been in the same ballpark as reality. David E. Kelley puts on a good show sometimes, but as a rule legal dramas are as reflective of the practice of law as CSI is reflective of the study of forensic science (that is to say, not at all reflective).)

You are right that any resemblance between a TV show involving lawyers and the actual practice of the law is purely coincidental. I have trained myself to rise above that, though. David E. Kelly's stuff tickles me to death despite its preposterousness. In fact, its very preposterousness is often what makes it entertaining.
post #25 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

You are right that any resemblance between a TV show involving lawyers and the actual practice of the law is purely coincidental. I have trained myself to rise above that, though. David E. Kelly's stuff tickles me to death despite its preposterousness. In fact, its very preposterousness is often what makes it entertaining.

True. But Kelley is, at least, clever and amusing. This show tries desperately to be so, but pales in comparison.

I do like the young kid. And I love a back-stabbing manipulative slimeball as much as the next guy, but this Louis character is so off-putting to me (he reminds me of a woodchuck with receding hair), he will most likely be the number one reason I stop watching.
post #26 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce73 View Post

True. But Kelley is, at least, clever and amusing. This show tries desperately to be so, but pales in comparison.

I do like the young kid. And I love a back-stabbing manipulative slimeball as much as the next guy, but this Louis character is so off-putting to me (he reminds me of a woodchuck with receding hair), he will most likely be the number one reason I stop watching.

I agree that Suits' writers are but a pale imitation of David E. Kelley. I loved Boston Legal and have become almost as fond of Harry's Law, especially Tommy Jefferson, World's Greatest Lawyer. I have known a few Tommy Jefferson's myself.
post #27 of 226
I am going to stick around for awhile longer, but it is treading water. It is definitely light summer fare. I think I would have been hooked if they would have made Rick a little more complex of a character. They had a chance, but then they moved that client away. Just a little to cliche.
post #28 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

especially Tommy Jefferson, World's Greatest Lawyer.

He had obviously watched William Shatner do Denny Crane a few times.
post #29 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73shark View Post

He had obviously watched William Shatner do Denny Crane a few times.

I agree that there are some similarities between Tommy Jefferson and Denny Crane but Tommy's touching vulnerability is not attributable to "mad cow disease." Anyway, we agree that David E. Kelley does a great job depicting arrogant lawyers.
post #30 of 226
OK i'll say it ... it beats watching ....................wait for it !



" Dancing With the Stars "





L O L !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Suits' on USA HD