# Suits - Season 4 (spoilers)



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I've come to the realization that every male character on this show is a jerk. Then they up the ante by casting a new male character (Jeff Malone) who sexually harasses Jessica every fifteen minutes. Pearson Spector's HR department must not have a mandatory workplace safety training video. 

I think I'm getting to the point where I'll just ffwd through Louis' scenes. They're beyond silly and his "I eat c*cks for breakfast, lunch and dinner" statement to Malone was just an stupid excuse for this show to push the language barrier even further than it normally does.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

His 'breakfast' comments pushed the story of Jeff 'hitting' on Louis. However, Louis's scene at the end was actually really good. Louis has tried to be a better person in the last year, and Jeff pushed him back into being a jerk. 

But yes, I'd call Jeff's behavior sexual harassment as well. I think he's realized that his behavior has taken him somewhere in the office where he didn't intend, and it's going to hurt him, professionally.

I'm surprised that Mike gave Harvey the tapes after it was his girlfriend that got Colton (or whatever Harvey's scummy client's name is) to stop investigating him. I'm sure that Colton is going to try and break up Mike and Rachel. His comments to Rachel about him having 'changed' are more to find a way to get Rachel back, now that he's shown up. We don't know that he is still married. I'm guessing he isn't. I also think Mike is correct that the dude has never had anyone say no to him, and that it's a challenge because of it.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I think I'm getting to the point where I'll just ffwd through Louis' scenes. They're beyond silly and his "I eat c*cks for breakfast, lunch and dinner" statement to Malone was just an stupid excuse for this show to push the language barrier even further than it normally does.


I think Louis is one of the best parts of the show. I like it when "the jerk" character in a series has some depth and they show the reasons why he's a jerk.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

I like the relationship that is building between Louis and Donna. She's humanized him.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I enjoy all Louis scenes. My recent favs are 

- practicing his speech to eyes and lips on a chair
- face off with Jeff 

I knew that line about rooster consumption would come back on him.


----------



## Wheens (Jan 1, 2003)

Didn't Jessica break the "Harvard Law graduates only" hiring criteria when she hired Jeff Malone?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Wheens said:


> Didn't Jessica break the "Harvard Law graduates only" hiring criteria when she hired Jeff Malone?


She already broke that with Rachael. Or will break it when she graduates.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Show is becoming a little too much 'soap opera' to me with the rachelsleptwithguywhomikecompetingwith and jessicahiresguysheissleepimgwith season plots. The conflicts of interest among the characters is just too dumb for an otherwise smart show. 

Feels like Louis has been completely marginalized.

This will turn out to be the worst season of the series.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Wheens said:


> Didn't Jessica break the "Harvard Law graduates only" hiring criteria when she hired Jeff Malone?


I think that's only first-years.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I'm with smbaker on this season. Something just isn't right and I find I have no interest in what's going on at all. Case-wise, I mean. If Donna wasn't on the show, I think I'd bail.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

efilippi said:


> Something just isn't right


Harvey and Mike going up against each other doesn't work. IMO.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> Harvey and Mike going up against each other doesn't work. IMO.


I'm in the opposite camp. I think seeing Harvey and Mike square off is fun. I don't want it to last forever, because I think they work best together. But I am enjoying them on opposite sides of the table.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I don't see a scenario I can live with where Mike comes back to the firm.
When Harvey and Donna were the only ones who were in on the secret I was ok with it. When Jessica was brought in and was OK with it I really had to suspend my disbelief.
I can't accept Jessica letting Mike come back. Unless the finale of the series is her and Harvey getting Disbarred/put on trial.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Gunnyman said:


> I don't see a scenario I can live with where Mike comes back to the firm.
> When Harvey and Donna were the only ones who were in on the secret I was ok with it. When Jessica was brought in and was OK with it I really had to suspend my disbelief.
> I can't accept Jessica letting Mike come back. Unless the finale of the series is her and Harvey getting Disbarred/put on trial.


I hadn't thought about that. That is a tough pickle the writers have gotten themselves into. They've done a good job in the past, I have faith in them.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I thought "Not again!" when surfer boy takeover guy threatened to expose dirt on Mike. I do NOT want this to be another "Protect Mike's secret" season. Then Harvey threw the curveball of telling that Mike is a former drug dealer. That leaves Mike's Harvard lie still in play and I'm pretty sure that we'll be bludgeoned with it some time this season.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I've come to the realization that every male character on this show is a jerk. Then they up the ante by casting a new male character (Jeff Malone) who sexually harasses Jessica every fifteen minutes.


This is one of those TV tropes that drives me insane. If we're supposed to believe that Jessica is attracted to this guy, we as viewers need to see SOMEthing attractive about him at SOME point. It's fine if they want to make him a jerk to the other employees, or towards his adversaries, or even toward his clients. But if he's always in jerkitude mode with Jessica, too, then as viewers we have no way to buy into the relationship. This happens in far too many shows, but when it happens on a show that is generally witty and often smart, it becomes glaringly out of sync with the rest of the show.



cheesesteak said:


> I do NOT want this to be another "Protect Mike's secret" season.


No kidding. They've put the Harvard secret to rest four or five times now. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure there is more scrutiny in high-octane professional circles than there is in my lowly middle-management position in textiles. But there has never been a single instance in my 27-year career when anyone investigated my college credentials beyond the point of simply reading them on my resume. Making it a constantly recurring issue on the show is tiresome. I want them to stop focusing on the Harvard secret, and to focus more on Mike's photographic memory for written materials. There have gotta be a lot more creative angles to explore with that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

pendragn said:


> I'm in the opposite camp. I think seeing Harvey and Mike square off is fun. I don't want it to last forever, because I think they work best together. But I am enjoying them on opposite sides of the table.


I'm liking this too. It has (and I'm surprised they didn't bring this up in the show yet) a Luke vs. Darth Vader kind of feel to it, where the student tried to become the teacher. And I like the dynamic of them trying to beat each other without revealing the "big lie" the series is about, because they know it ruins both of them.

But...I do agree some of it is cringe worthy. I like Louis when he's adversarial but still on the side of the firm, but this last episode was pretty pathetic what they've done to him. I also don't get the need for Jessica to bring in the other lawyer, and dance around the love interest. It really isn't working. This was a needless plot line and a case they could have given to Louis, as they've kind of hinted at the whole time. And lastly, does anyone feel like for some reason, someone at USA Network told the writers, "Hey, it's ok to use the Sh*t word" so now they have to put it in every other sentence. There was one scene toward the end of last season, that I think was between Mike and Donna where they must have used it about 10 times in one paragraph. SO now I think they just use the word because "they can". I don't mind it in context, but it feels so forced.

Lastly, I think this might finally be the season where Donna and Harvey hook up. They've been dancing around that one for years, but they've never actually gotten them close enough for it to get romantic. Donna's comment "I'm a Harvey fan" kind of thinks there's a lot of pent up emotion toward Harvey for her.

Overall, this could be a great season or REALLY bad. We'll see.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

How long has Mike been an investment banker? It can't be more than a couple of months but they're letting him handle his own business deals without close supervision? Maybe that's how they do it in the real world. I certainly don't know but it seems odd.

Also, do lawyers at Harvey's level specialize? He seems to work on every type of case under the sun.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Only a few months, but the dude that hired him pitched it as more of a "partnership" so maybe he has had more freedom from the start. 

The company was a startup.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I think the show has lost its mojo and has been meandering around for at least the last season. What made it interesting was the relationship between Mike and Harvey. Now it's just a sad rivalry of some sort. Louis is still an idiot. And now they're bringing in more idiots to the firm. All the craziness seems to have just been to put Harvey in a position where they try to make us think he'd reveal Mike's falsified legal history, and they didn't really care what they had to do to get to that point. Now they all just need to whip out their penises and compare then kill off the show and be done with it.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

vertigo235 said:


> Only a few months, but the dude that hired him pitched it as more of a "partnership" so maybe he has had more freedom from the start.
> 
> The company was a startup.


He also changed his demeanor quite a bit. He really liked Mike at the end of last season and this season he;s a major A-hole.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

That's because his new boss is a Major A-Hole.

While Harvey could come across as an A-hole, he is actually a good guy who cares about Mike and his Clients.

Edit: Oh never mind, I mis-read your post. I think that guy was always a major A-hole, he just underestimated Mike's non A-Holeness


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

They ramped up the A-hole factor between seasons.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

True that guy was a "victim" last season, he was stuck working for the other A-Hole. 

Mike shouldn't have helped him out of that.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

vertigo235 said:


> Only a few months, but the dude that hired him pitched it as more of a "partnership" so maybe he has had more freedom from the start.
> 
> The company was a startup.


I remember that, and yet, it appears that Mike is much less than a partner in the way he's being treated.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Clearly it is not a 50% partnership


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Even Mike was an a-hole the couple of times he was Spanish Inquisitioning Rachel about her relationship with takeover a-hole dude. She didn't tell him all the details because he didn't need to know.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I really don't know what's going on as far as the investment banking angle. Mike seems to be doing the same thing he's always been doing.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I really don't know what's going on as far as the investment banking angle. Mike seems to be doing the same thing he's always been doing.


This plot seems to be going round and round with no end in sight, and it's frankly getting boring. It also feels like they have completely run out of things for Louis. This whole stage fright things was just stupid. And they finally seem to be moving toward Harvey and Donna getting together.

I don't know if I'm just tired of the show or if its off the rails, but this used to be a must watch for me, and now it is just a watch when I can show.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> And they finally seem to be moving toward Harvey and Donna getting together.


Huh? Harvey has several times before taken Donna out in the limo to show his appreciation and friendship. It does not mean they are "getting together".


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> This plot seems to be going round and round with no end in sight, and it's frankly getting boring. It also feels like they have completely run out of things for Louis. This whole stage fright things was just stupid. And they finally seem to be moving toward Harvey and Donna getting together.
> 
> I don't know if I'm just tired of the show or if its off the rails, but this used to be a must watch for me, and now it is just a watch when I can show.


This pretty much sums it up for me. A lot of the dialog/banter is still kind of fun to watch, but yeah, at this point it's just spinning it's wheels as far as the storyline is concerned.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Dawghows said:


> This pretty much sums it up for me. A lot of the dialog/banter is still kind of fun to watch, but yeah, at this point it's just spinning it's wheels as far as the storyline is concerned.


I agree. I think by the end of the season Mike will no longer be an investment banker and will be back with Pearson Specter. Hopefully they make Louis a name partner.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Huh? Harvey has several times before taken Donna out in the limo to show his appreciation and friendship. It does not mean they are "getting together".


There have been subtle hints all season. More than any other season, we are seeing examples of Donna's devotion toward Harvey and we are getting catch phrases like I'm a "Harvey fan" or I'm a "Donna fan" stuff like that. It seems that the writers are going out of their way to hammer that point home. It does seem that things are pointing that way, at least to me.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Has anyone noticed how Harvey calling out "Donna" harkens back to Josh calling out to his "Donna" on the West Wing? And both of the Donnas in their own way seem smarter than their bosses.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Craigbob said:


> Hopefully they make Louis a name partner.


Hopefully they give him a couple story lines in which he's not a total idiot and the butt of all jokes first.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I missed the episode before last week's (the one with Eric Roberts). Can someone quickly summarize it (show hasn't been good enough to download it -- especially since we've already watched the "Pound of Flesh" one) but I feel I'm missing something.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> This plot seems to be going round and round with no end in sight, and it's frankly getting boring. It also feels like they have completely run out of things for Louis. This whole stage fright things was just stupid. And they finally seem to be moving toward Harvey and Donna getting together.
> 
> I don't know if I'm just tired of the show or if its off the rails, but this used to be a must watch for me, and now it is just a watch when I can show.


the plot does keep going around and around. It is pretty dead.

The only fun was Harvey and Mike out at the steak place. They are just too good a team to keep seperated.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> There have been subtle hints all season. More than any other season, we are seeing examples of Donna's devotion toward Harvey and we are getting catch phrases like I'm a "Harvey fan" or I'm a "Donna fan" stuff like that. It seems that the writers are going out of their way to hammer that point home. It does seem that things are pointing that way, at least to me.


It is just friendship, same as they have always had. Nothing is different.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

wprager said:


> I missed the episode before last week's (the one with Eric Roberts). Can someone quickly summarize it (show hasn't been good enough to download it -- especially since we've already watched the "Pound of Flesh" one) but I feel I'm missing something.


Harvey and Eric Roberts have a past where Harvey did Eric wrong.
Mike tries to get money investors and Harvey sends Louis to foil him. Louis wins, gloats and says enemies hold grudges.
Mike gets the idea to go to Eric as an investor only Eric wants Mike to screw over his investment banker boss as a condition of getting the money.
Will Mike or won't he?
Louis confesses to Harvey he inadvertently gave Mike the idea to go to Eric.
Harvey warns him not to get in bed with Eric.


Spoiler



Mike does the right thing only to find out Eric has gone behind his back and made the investment through his investment banker boss.


and scene.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

betts4 said:


> the plot does keep going around and around. It is pretty dead.
> 
> The only fun was Harvey and Mike out at the steak place. They are just too good a team to keep seperated.


I started out liking Harvey and Mike on opposite sides. The whole mentor vs. mentee thing. But, the plot is just taking too long to materialize.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> It is just friendship, same as they have always had. Nothing is different.


Maybe it's just me, but it feels different to me.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Cainebj said:


> Mike does the right thing only to find out Eric has gone behind his back and made the investment through his investment banker boss.


Well, Mike did not *really* do the "right thing". He was seriously considering taking the money. But then Jessica bought the shares so then there was no reason for Mike to take the money anymore.

I wonder if -- when Sidwell finds out about the FU clause in the deal and confronts Mike -- Mike will say that he never planned to actually take the money and so did not plan to betray Sidwell. It would have been a valid strategy to just use the potential of the money as a bluff against Harvey. So Mike could credibly tell Sidwell that he never had any intention of betraying him. Of course, that would be a lie.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Well, Mike did not really do the "right thing". He was seriously considering taking the money. But then Jessica bought the shares so then there was no reason for Mike to take the money anymore.
> 
> I wonder if -- when Sidwell finds out about the FU clause in the deal and confronts Mike -- Mike will say that he never planned to actually take the money and so did not plan to betray Sidwell. It would have been a valid strategy to just use the potential of the money as a bluff against Harvey. So Mike could credibly tell Sidwell that he never had any intention of betraying him. Of course, that would be a lie.


When we found out that Eric Roberts got Sidwell to accept the money, that to me signaled that Mike was off the hook, because if Sidwell gets cut out of the deal now, he'll have nobody but himself to blame.

My speculation is that with Harvey now regretting the way this whole thing went down, and Mike not wanting to be involved with his own partners, Harvey and Mike will somehow team up to foil the deal. And since Mike now realizes that the pressure of him not really being an attorney still exists in the investment banking world, he'll decide that if he has to keep that secret his entire professional life, he'd rather do it at Pearson Specter.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> When we found out that Eric Roberts got Sidwell to accept the money, that to me signaled that Mike was off the hook, because if Sidwell gets cut out of the deal now, he'll have nobody but himself to blame.


I agree that Sidwell essentially screwed himself over when he went behind Mike's back to take the money.

But I am still curious about the upcoming Sidwell / Mike confrontation. It would seem natural for Sidwell to accuse Mike of betraying him. Will Mike respond that he seriously considered said betrayal (the truth), or will Mike claim that he never had any intention of betraying Sidwell and was just bluffing with the deal (a credible lie)?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Thanks for the recap. But I think I'm even more confused now. This show can do that to me, sometimes.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I totally lost track of the various machinations, crosses and double crosses in the Gillis Industries deal. I have no idea how Sidwell could be cut out of the deal that his firm negotiated.

I can deal with Mike going back to the law firm but this Mike/Rachel breakup crap needs to stop. I was sick of their drama a couple of years ago.

I hope Jessica wasn't kidding when she told Jeff Malone he was fired.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

This was like the third time that Mike swore to Rachel that she could tell him anything, she tells him something, and he bails in a nanosecond. It's getting tiresome.

On the other hand, Donna is never tiresome. NEVER.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Rachel could do better. So could Mike. They just aren't all that compatible. 

And how did Eric Roberts get so rich when each deal involves accessing someone? Being ruthless is one thing, but this is all personal.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

cheesesteak said:


> this Mike/Rachel breakup crap needs to stop. I was sick of their drama a couple of years ago.


I agree. Jesus it was a half hearted kiss at best - the way they all acted you would think they did the full nasty.

The other tired story line is Jessica and her love interest
I'm the boss we can't have a relationship oh wait we can oh no we can't I hate you I don't hate you your work is the best no you screwed up we have to be professionals now kiss me.

Yawn.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> The other tired story line is Jessica and her love interest
> I'm the boss we can't have a relationship oh wait we can oh no we can't I hate you I don't hate you your work is the best no you screwed up we have to be professionals now kiss me.
> 
> Yawn.


Especially with the fact that he's a total dick.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> The other tired story line is Jessica and her love interest
> I'm the boss we can't have a relationship oh wait we can oh no we can't I hate you I don't hate you your work is the best no you screwed up we have to be professionals now kiss me.
> 
> Yawn.


This. Plus there is ZERO chemistry between the two. So much so that I have a hard time even believing that they even belong in the same room with each other let alone dating.

I'm really disappointed in this season. I thought it started it with a lot of promise with Mike and Harvey being adversaries. The "apprentice" up against his "master" thing. But things go SO convoluted that I really couldn't follow everything that was going on, and really just wanted it to get over with.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> But things go SO convoluted that I really couldn't follow everything that was going on, and really just wanted it to get over with.


Huh? What was hard to follow?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Huh? What was hard to follow?


The whole Gillis Industries shenanigans.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> The whole Gillis Industries shenanigans.


This


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

For the life of me, I don't understand why Mike was allowed to run point on the Gillis Industries project, pretty much unsupervised, when he'd been an investment banker for about five minutes. Especially going against Harvey "I've never lost a case" Specter.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> For the life of me, I don't understand why Mike was allowed to run point on the Gillis Industries project, pretty much unsupervised, when he'd been an investment banker for about five minutes. Especially going against Harvey "I've never lost a case" Specter.


Because Sidwell trusted him..whatever that means. That's another inconsistency IMO. On one hand Sidwell treats him like any other employee, on the other, he's able to do whatever the heck he wants. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> For the life of me, I don't understand why Mike was allowed to run point on the Gillis Industries project, pretty much unsupervised, when he'd been an investment banker for about five minutes. Especially going against Harvey "I've never lost a case" Specter.


Well, Sidwell brought Mike on board to make deals, and this was Mike's deal. I think Sidwell would have checked up on things more often, but I don't have a problem with Mike being allowed to run point.

As for Harvey's involvement, it wasn't a legal deal, so I'm not sure why Harvey was involved at the level he was. Someone in Logan's position would have been doing most of the maneuvering, and would have just used Harvey to draft documents and help with negotiations. Instead, it was almost like Harvey and the firm were essentially doing Logan's job for him.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Well, Sidwell brought Mike on board to make deals, and this was Mike's deal. I think Sidwell would have checked up on things more often, but I don't have a problem with Mike being allowed to run point.
> 
> As for Harvey's involvement, it wasn't a legal deal, so I'm not sure why Harvey was involved at the level he was. Someone in Logan's position would have been doing most of the maneuvering, and would have just used Harvey to draft documents and help with negotiations. Instead, it was almost like Harvey and the firm were essentially doing Logan's job for him.


I thought Jessica bought stock in Gillis' company so they were involved directly in the deal (although in real life, they might have been doing insider trading by doing that). I've never been involved in that sort of investment banking, and I bet legal gets more involved than we think.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Steveknj said:


> I thought Jessica bought stock in Gillis' company so they were involved directly in the deal (although in real life, they might have been doing insider trading by doing that). I've never been involved in that sort of investment banking, and I bet legal gets more involved than we think.


That deal was voided when dipsh*t lawyer found something boyfriend lawyer missed when setting up the purchase so it would be "questionable" instead of just "illegal."


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> This


What was hard to follow about it? It seemed clear enough to me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> What was hard to follow about it? It seemed clear enough to me.


So go ahead and explain it, in language that those of us who aren't investment bankers can understand. I'm not the only one in the thread that found it confusing and convoluted.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> So go ahead and explain it, in language that those of us who aren't investment bankers can understand.


Explain what about it? I'm not going to write up a synopsis of the show, but I might answer specific questions.

I don't see how you need to be an investment banker to understand most of what happened.


----------



## rcandsc (Feb 5, 2014)

My wife and I have similar discussions around this show. 

The one that is driving us nuts right now is the interactions between Jessica and Jeff. He lies about his motives for coming to Jessica for the position in Pearson Specter in the first place, and then gets upset with Jessica for not trusting him. In what ways has he proved himself to be someone that can be trusted?

Secondly, Jeff gets upset when Jessica asks Louis to check Jeff's work on the stock purchase, because, once again, she doesn't trust his work. Louis finds a major mistake, so it seems that Jessica was actually smart in not trusting his work.

So far, Jeff has proven to be a liar, inept at his job, and in serious need of some training in what is, and what is not sexual harassment in the workplace


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

First season was awesome. 2nd season very good, this one and last one, not so much.

I still watch it, and I do like it, but something is definitely missing.

The original hook is missing now that everybody knows Mike's secret.

Also, I miss the Mike who could recite pg 457 line 3 in Moby Dick or whatever.

They are not using his smarts to solve problems, they are just using his dickishness.

-smak-


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

smak said:


> Also, I miss the Mike who could recite pg 457 line 3 in Moby Dick or whatever.
> 
> They are not using his smarts to solve problems, they are just using his dickishness.
> 
> -smak-


Exactly this. His character isn't interesting because he has/had a secret. What makes (or made) him interesting is his super-memory. Without that, he's just another lawyer on just another law show.

But then again, this is the only law show with Donna, so I'll keep watching.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> I thought Jessica bought stock in Gillis' company so they were involved directly in the deal (although in real life, they might have been doing insider trading by doing that). I've never been involved in that sort of investment banking, and I bet legal gets more involved than we think.


That only happened toward the very end of the proceedings. I don't really know why Harvey was so involved in the deal up until that point, except that Logan was supposedly taking over his father's company but didn't know what he was doing, so Harvey was doing all the work that Logan should have been doing.

Basically, Mike was an investment banker on one side of the deal, Logan was the investment banker on the other side of the deal. So why wasn't this a battle between Mike and Logan rather than between Mike and Harvey?

And the answer is because the show needed to create conflict between Mike and Harvey. I just think they did a poor job of coming up with the mechanics of it. The beginning of the season, where Mike was using Pearson Specter, and then Logan was also using them and both sides are going after Gillis so there's a conflict of interest - that stuff made sense. But after that, Harvey's constant involvement was a little much.

As for those of you who were confused by all the machinations, I can see how it could be confusing if you didn't have a basic understanding of hostile takeovers and some of the SEC regulations. And even if you did, the writers kind of botched the execution of it all.

Basically, Logan wanted to buy Gillis and then strip away the overhead (employees) and sell off just the profitable part of the company. Mike wanted to buy Gillis and keep the employees intact. Gillis owed about $500 million to his employees pension plan, but wasn't using his money for that. When Logan made an offer to fund the pension plan, the only way Mike could stay in the game was to get Gillis to use his money to fund the pension. So that thwarted Logan's move, but it also used up all of Walter Gillis' resources. So Mike had to go find another source of money - enter Forstmann. Some third party was selling off its shares in Gillis. Buying that block of shares would put either Mike or Logan over the 5% threshold that would require them to disclose their ownership. But since Gillis was well aware of what Mike was doing, and Mike was well aware of what Logan was doing, I don't really see why the 5% threshold was really a big deal.

But anyway, Mike and Harvey were going to bid on the third-party block of Gillis stock, with the winner basically winning the right to take over Gillis. Mike and Harvey agree to postpone the auction while Rachel is in the hospital, and Jessica swoops in and buys the shares as the only bidder at the scheduled auction. And the plan was to simply act as a third party owner of the shares (parking, which is illegal) so that Logan wouldn't own over 5% and therefore wouldn't have to disclose anything. But because of Cahill at the SEC breathing down their neck, he knew about Jessica's purchase of the shares, meaning that Pearson Specter could never sell them to Logan's company, or Cahill would bust Pearson Specter for parking. So now Pearson Specter has shares in Gillis that it doesn't really want, and Louis Litt figures out how to nullify the purchase and gets Forstmann to buy the shares.

Now Forstmann sells the shares to Sidwell, and then apparently renegs on his deal and sells them to Logan, meaning Mike lost his bid to take over Gillis. And at the same time, Forstmann tells Sidwell that Mike was going to cut Sidwell out of the deal, which gets Mike fired.

Did that make any sense? Did I miss anything? Did I screw anything up?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smak said:


> The original hook is missing now that everybody knows Mike's secret.
> 
> Also, I miss the Mike who could recite pg 457 line 3 in Moby Dick or whatever.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this, except for the idea that everyone know's Mike's secret. Only four people know (Harvey, Jessica, Donna, Rachel) and there's still a very real danger to the firm if anyone else (like Louis) finds out. My problem is that the whole peril of Mike keeping a secret is just totally played out. I don't want to go back to that being the central theme of the show.

And as for Mike's super memory, that was kind of a gimmick early in the series to allow him to perform well as Harvey's associate despite no real training. But now that Mike's apparently been a practicing "attorney" for a few years, he shouldn't have to win every case by simply being able to recall some obscure fact or statute that nobody else would be able to remember. He should have developed some skills that will serve him even when he can't deploy his secret weapon. I agree that the show was much more "fun" when Mike was getting over on people simply because he was smarter than them, or recalled something that gave him an advantage. But that was S1 and S2 of the show. That's kind of played out. So if they go back to that, then the character hasn't really progressed.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevDog, thanks for the explanation. A few things I still don't really understand.

1. What did Forstman mean by cutting out Sidwell? How was Mike going to accomplish that?

2. Why did Forstman want to cut out Sidwell? Was it something personal?

3. Why did Forstman then go ahead and make the deal with Sidwell when Sidwell came asking, instead of cutting him out as he wanted?

4. Mike wasn't really going to use Forstman's money -- he was going to use the threat of having the money -- to do what, exactly? And what would that do, how would it help?

5. And this question I asked before, how could Forstman become so rich and successful when every deal looks to hinge on screwing someone. And giving huge signing bonuses to unproven (and defeated) rookie investment bankers. I mean, really, is there a better way to attract employees than getting them fired from their current employer by betraying their trust?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wprager said:


> Devdog, thanks for the explanation. A few things I still don't really understand.
> 
> 1. What did Forstman mean by cutting out Sidwell? How was Mike going to accomplish that?


They never really explained the mechanics of how exactly this would work. But presumably, Forstman was going to require Mike to put some kind of language in the agreement that took whatever commission Sidwell was supposed to get and gave it to someone else or to Forstman himself.



wprager said:


> 2. Why did Forstman want to cut out Sidwell? Was it something personal?


I don't think so. I think Forstman just likes being a dick, just likes to stir up trouble. He was willing to give Mike the money but only if Mike would take the money with conditions that would put Mike in a no-win situation.



wprager said:


> 3. Why did Forstman then go ahead and make the deal with Sidwell when Sidwell came asking, instead of cutting him out as he wanted?


Forstman had already committed to give the money, Sidwell didn't know about the deal to cut him out. So when the shares became available, and Mike couldn't be reached, Sidwell went ahead and bought the shares using Forstman's money under the previously agreed-to terms. It was at that point that Forstman decided to throw Mike under the bus and tell Sidwell about the terms of the deal.



wprager said:


> 4. Mike wasn't really going to use Forstman's money -- he was going to use the threat of having the money -- to do what, exactly? And what would that do, how would it help?


Mike needed money to buy shares. That's why he went to Forstman in the first place. But then when Forstman attached the no-win condition, Mike didn't want to use the money. Mike thought he could just bluff and simply use the fact that he had access to the money in order to get Harvey/Logan to back down and let Mike win the takeover bid without Mike actually having to buy that next round of shares. But Harvey figured out what Mike was up to and called the bluff. And IIRC, that's when Mike and Harvey were going to have the auction to buy those shares and then Jessica went and bought them instead. So Mike never actually needed Forstman's money until Louis unwound that deal, sold the shares to Forstman, and then Forstman called Sidwell to sell them.



wprager said:


> 5. And this question I asked before, how could Forstman become so rich and successful when every deal looks to hinge on screwing someone.
> 
> And giving huge signing bonuses to unproven (and defeated) rookie investment bankers. I mean, really, is there a better way to attract employees than getting them fired from their current employer by betraying their trust?


We don't know how Forstman got to be so rich. But I think what we're supposed to take away from all this is that he's incredibly shrewd and extremely ruthless, and that he'll use whatever underhanded tricks he has available to him in order to win. He doesn't care who he has to screw over or who gets hurt. Emotions are not something he worries about.

And he saw something in Mike that he wanted to exploit for his own gain. So that's likely why he put the no-win condition on the money and why, when Mike didn't use it, Forstman made sure the deal happened anyway and that Sidwell found out. Because Forstman wanted Mike to get fired so Forstman could have leverage on Mike to get Mike to come work for him.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Did you do that synopsis off the top of your head or did you take notes?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Maybe he just pays more attention to the plot and not to Donna or whoever, like the rest of us


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Explain what about it? I'm not going to write up a synopsis of the show, but I might answer specific questions.
> 
> I don't see how you need to be an investment banker to understand most of what happened.


No explain the whole Gillis deal to us, with all of the intricacies that happened. That's all I'm asking. You claim it was easy to follow and understand.

Edit, I guess DevdogAZ explained it as best it could be explained. I guess if you have some understanding of what they were trying to do, it makes all kinds of sense. Not to me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> That only happened toward the very end of the proceedings. I don't really know why Harvey was so involved in the deal up until that point, except that Logan was supposedly taking over his father's company but didn't know what he was doing, so Harvey was doing all the work that Logan should have been doing.
> 
> Basically, Mike was an investment banker on one side of the deal, Logan was the investment banker on the other side of the deal. So why wasn't this a battle between Mike and Logan rather than between Mike and Harvey?
> 
> ...


I think you got it, but as you said, it's just not all that simple to understand unless you understand what they were trying to do. And there were so many moves and counter moves that after awhile, I got lost, and frankly got to the point where I just didn't care anymore and wanted it resolved. The best parts were the battles between Mike and Harvey. Other than that, it was a confusing mess.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I read all that and still didn't get it but glad someone did.

I got up to here - in the show -


> Basically, Logan wanted to buy Gillis and then strip away the overhead (employees) and sell off just the profitable part of the company. Mike wanted to buy Gillis and keep the employees intact. Gillis owed about $500 million to his employees pension plan, but wasn't using his money for that. When Logan made an offer to fund the pension plan, the only way Mike could stay in the game was to get Gillis to use his money to fund the pension. So that thwarted Logan's move, but it also used up all of Walter Gillis' resources. So Mike had to go find another source of money - enter Forstmann.


And just concentrated on Mike/Rachel/d-bag and Louis. Oh and what did he sign at the end there? He looked like he was making a deal with the devil.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
> 
> Did you do that synopsis off the top of your head or did you take notes?


You're welcome. I did it from memory, but I'm an attorney and have dealt with some securities matters, so it was all relatively familiar to me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I read all that and still didn't get it but glad someone did.
> 
> I got up to here - in the show -
> 
> And just concentrated on Mike/Rachel/d-bag and Louis. Oh and what did he sign at the end there? He looked like he was making a deal with the devil.


That's me too. I got the original premise of what Mike was trying to do. To try and keep Gillis as the owner and invest with him, but then it got confusing and the back and forth was drawn out over the season that eventually I lost it (maybe if I binged this show, I might have understood it better). Throw in the legal stuff with the firm and the SEC and all the games between Mike and Harvey trying to screw each other, and Logan trying to screw Rachel and it got my head spinning.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Although as we see here the plot mechanisms are pretty hard to follow, I'm glad to see this type of law as a show, rather than the usual kind we see.

I find this and The Good Wife's "cases" much more interesting, than the cases on your typical lawyer show.

-smak-


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Does Donna actually do any work other than get all up in other peoples' business?


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

yes she does it even before Harvey asks. I think 2x this past episode


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I'm just disappointed that Mike being a fraud is back as a major plot point. It's very tired and boring. I wish they would just put that to bed, hell retcon the whole show to get rid of it, it is tedious.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Glad that Mike is back, sorry that Louis is in trouble after helping Mike. 

I hope they can figure out a way to dig him out of the hole. I think a bomb going off in the building with the govt guy (who always plays jerks), Logan and the rich guy that got Louis to sign something would be a nice ending. Maybe if Rachel was in there too.

I did like the interplay between Rachel and Donna. And Harvey when he does that half smile is hawt.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I'm tired of seeing Neal McDonough, who plays the SEC, as the villain. He was in Band of Brothers, for goodness sake! And a Howling Commando (Dum Dum Dugan) in the Captain America movies!

He was also the lead in the TV series _Medical Investigation,_ but that lasted only 20 episodes, so he probably doesn't mention it much.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Graymalkin said:


> I'm tired of seeing Neal McDonough, who plays the SEC, as the villain. He was in Band of Brothers, for goodness sake! And a Howling Commando (Dum Dum Dugan) in the Captain America movies!
> 
> He was also the lead in the TV series _Medical Investigation,_ but that lasted only 20 episodes, so he probably doesn't mention it much.


I think McDonough has been *awesome* as the bad guy. First on Justified, now this. Love it! I'm thinking about starting a whitehouse.gov petition that Neal McDonough should be on TV every season, no matter what!


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

If you want a Neal McDonough fix you need to check out the old NBC series Boomtown. He played a DA named David McNorris and he was born for the part. Will always be the role that defines him for me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

ClutchBrake said:


> If you want a Neal McDonough fix you need to check out the old NBC series Boomtown. He played a DA named David McNorris and he was born for the part. Will always be the role that defines him for me.


This. He was excellent in that show.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Is this the second or third case Louis has bungled this season? There was the case where he was reduced to a babbling idiot in court because Mike showed him the fake Facebook page. I think there was another case that Harvey reamed him out for too before the Gillis case.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

Why doesn't Mike just go to law school and take the bar afterward? He wouldn't even have to study. I guess it would put into question all the cases he had worked on beforehand.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Howie said:


> Why doesn't Mike just go to law school and take the bar afterward? He wouldn't even have to study. I guess it would put into question all the cases he had worked on beforehand.


It would have to be Harvard.

-smak-


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

ClutchBrake said:


> If you want a Neal McDonough fix you need to check out the old NBC series Boomtown. He played a DA named David McNorris and he was born for the part. Will always be the role that defines him for me.


Thanks for jogging my memory for me. That was a good show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Howie said:


> Why doesn't Mike just go to law school and take the bar afterward? He wouldn't even have to study. I guess it would put into question all the cases he had worked on beforehand.


You answered your own question. If he goes back to school, then that's essentially admitting that everything he was involved in for the last few years is potentially voidable, which could subject the firm to massive malpractice suits and bar complaints.

But the entire premise of the show is actually pretty stupid. A law firm can employ a law clerk that's not licensed and that clerk simply works under the supervision of a licensed attorney and the clerk doesn't actually sign any documents. But the clerk can prepare all the docs, talk to clients, and essentially do everything the supervising attorney can other than sign documents and appear in court. If Harvey had simply hired Mike as a clerk in the beginning, none of this stuff would have mattered.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

pendragn said:


> I think McDonough has been *awesome* as the bad guy. First on Justified, now this. Love it! I'm thinking about starting a whitehouse.gov petition that Neal McDonough should be on TV every season, no matter what!


So agree. Loved him even in his smaller part in "Traitor".


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> I'm tired of seeing Neal McDonough, who plays the SEC, as the villain. He was in Band of Brothers, for goodness sake! And a Howling Commando (Dum Dum Dugan) in the Captain America movies!
> 
> He was also the lead in the TV series _Medical Investigation,_ but that lasted only 20 episodes, so he probably doesn't mention it much.


He was a villain on Desperate Housewives as well.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Really enjoyed the most recent episode. Things are much better when Harvey and Mike are on the same team.


----------



## pendragn (Jan 21, 2001)

Well, I think we have confirmation that the whole "Mike didn't go to Harvard" storyline is not going away.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Yeah but now instead of everyone fearing that Louis will find out, he'll be as guilty of hiding it as the rest of them (assuming his demands are met).


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

scooterboy said:


> Yeah but now instead of everyone fearing that Louis will find out, he'll be as guilty of hiding it as the rest of them (assuming his demands are met).


That is what I was thinking. Louis was one of the last of the major players to be unaware so now he will be on board and get his name on the door. I loved how he came at Donna and Jessica. After that scene I see why his girlfriend didn't want to be an afterthought. He should have had the same passion about her and the fact that she didn't want children.

(I love Louis but I would have fired him also.)

Decent finale with Harvey, Mike, Jessica, Donna & Rachael all playing nice. The loose ends:

Louis will return but what about Katrina? She'll want to know how Louis got back in. I don't see them axing her character yet. (I like her too.)

Papa Zane will also want to know how Louis got back in. If he finds out, he is ruthless but may not want to hurt Rachael.

I'm not buying that Harvey was going to the bathroom that many times at the restaurant. I also didn't buy that Mike didn't know about the key and didn't check into it after Louis made the comment about him already knowing. He picks up on everything. He KNEW that Jessica was going to Katrina's office right after they talked.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Was this longer than an hour last night? I watched an hour show, thought I'd seen the whole thing but I don't know what you guys are talking about RE: Louis finding out about Mike.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Beryl said:


> (I love Louis but I would have fired him also.)


I don't love Louis and I would have fired him long ago. But even at this late date, I would have let him take at least one client (never totally burn bridges if you can avoid it).

Ironically, if Jessica had done that, she probably could have avoided this whole mess.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

SeanC said:


> Was this longer than an hour last night? I watched an hour show, thought I'd seen the whole thing but I don't know what you guys are talking about RE: Louis finding out about Mike.


How could you miss it? Mike was at Louis' place and asked him about a key that if he would have gone to Harvard that he would have known about. Louis then had the confrontation with Donna where Louis revealed to her that he knew and why he knew it. He went to talk to Jessica and while he was on his way Donna called Jessica and told her that Louis knew. Louis then demanded Pearson, Specter and Litt. It was pretty significant and impossible to miss.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Azlen said:


> How could you miss it? Mike was at Louis' place and asked him about a key that if he would have gone to Harvard that he would have known about. Louis then had the confrontation with Donna where Louis revealed to her that he knew and why he knew it. He went to talk to Jessica and while he was on his way Donna called Jessica and told her that Louis knew. Louis then demanded Pearson, Specter and Litt. It was pretty significant and impossible to miss.


I dunno, I totally remember Mike visiting and talking about the key, but not much else. I'll look at it when I get home.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

john4200 said:


> I don't love Louis and I would have fired him long ago. But even at this late date, I would have let him take at least one client (never totally burn bridges if you can avoid it).
> 
> Ironically, if Jessica had done that, she probably could have avoided this whole mess.


Her logic was sound. Let one guy do it and everyone will try to do it.

However, I'd probably negotiate a separation package that included a number of clients. He wanted 3 so I'd let him have 2 to control the blood loss.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

LOL I do believe I dozed off at the end there and didn't notice. Never saw the last 10 minutes and deleted the show. (I did undelete and watch the end)


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Why was Luis mad at Donna? She wasn't a real friend because she didn't tell Luis about Mike?

-smak-


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

smak said:


> Why was Luis mad at Donna? She wasn't a real friend because she didn't tell Luis about Mike?
> 
> -smak-


Yes, exactly that.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

smak said:


> Why was Luis mad at Donna? She wasn't a real friend because she didn't tell Luis about Mike?
> 
> -smak-


Not just that she didn't tell him the truth but also that she was actively involved in lying to Louis about it.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

This episode was kinda slow and disappointing to me, and then all of a sudden in the last few minutes...

Jessica got litt up!

Awesome ending to the season. Louis started out the season weak and then finished strong. Can't wait to see how this shakes down next season.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

smbaker said:


> Awesome ending to the season. Louis started out the season weak and then finished strong. Can't wait to see how this shakes down next season.


Isn't this only the season half time?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Beryl said:


> Her logic was sound. Let one guy do it and everyone will try to do it.


Nope, not sound at all. Jessica is the boss. She could just say Louis was a special case and deny anyone else. Besides, it is not like they are going to be losing a senior partner very often, so the situation may not come up for a long time.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

john4200 said:


> Besides, it is not like they are going to be losing a senior partner very often, so the situation may not come up for a long time.


IIRC, a senior partner has left every season so far for some reason or another.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Beryl said:


> IIRC, a senior partner has left every season so far for some reason or another.


IIRC, nope. And besides, irrelevant.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

Jessica needs to accidentally fall out of her office window, and the show would improve substantially. The firm of Specter and Litt would be much more interesting than anything that included Pearson. I'm to the point I usually FF Jessica involved scenes because every one is exactly the same.

J: "I'm doing what is best for MY firm... blah blah blah blah blah"
H/M/D/R/Anyone else: "But it would be nice/better/good/helpful if you... blah blah blah blah"
J: "I'm not doing blah blah blah blah..."
H/M/D/R/Anyone else: "But it blah blah blah"
J: "This is MY firm and I will not blah blah blah blah, because I am blah blah blah"


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

as Hot as Gina Torres is, I have to agree.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Flop said:


> Jessica needs to accidentally fall out of her office window, and the show would improve substantially. The firm of Specter and Litt would be much more interesting than anything that included Pearson. I'm to the point I usually FF Jessica involved scenes because every one is exactly the same.
> 
> J: "I'm doing what is best for MY firm... blah blah blah blah blah"
> H/M/D/R/Anyone else: "But it would be nice/better/good/helpful if you... blah blah blah blah"
> ...


LOL perfect! and I also agree.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Harvey has on occasion told her that she f'd up. Maybe he'll do so here. She really f'd up here. Her stubbornness is what got them here.

-smak-


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Gunnyman said:


> as Hot as Gina Torres is, I have to agree.


Me three. She's become a one-dimensional B-word. Vindictive without any good reason to do what she does other than spite. I mean, when Harvey (the human stone) tells you to show a little compassion you know you've stepped way over the "high-functional sociopath" line.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

By the way, what law has Mike broken, again? He lied at his interview, sort-of but everyone does that. After he got hired he could easily argue that he was coerced by his bosses to not come clean. Did he ever represent a client by himself, as opposed to being a legal search engine? 

Practicing law without having passed the bar in New York is a misdemeanor. But what does Mike do that Rachael doesn't do? Except do it better? You don't need to be a lawyer to prepare legal documents so long as a real lawyer goes over them, right?

So what, exactly, constitutes "practicing law"? If a plaintiff decides to represent himself, for example, he will be labeled a fool, but no-one can stop him. So if arguing a case in court does not constitute practicing law, what does?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

wprager said:


> By the way, what law has Mike broken, again?


At a minimum, he is involved in fraud and whatever the charge is for illegal computer access through his implicit cooperation with (and silence about) the woman who hacked Harvard's computers to forge his credentials.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I also thought this was a satisfying end to the half season but I also don't buy that Mike would not know what the key was. I am not saying he _knew_ and was giving himself away to Louis but if that is such a big part of Harvard Law School - he would know.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Cainebj said:


> I also thought this was a satisfying end to the half season but I also don't buy that Mike would not know what the key was. I am not saying he _knew_ and was giving himself away to Louis but if that is such a big part of Harvard Law School - he would know.


It was a plot device to get Louis to find out about Mike. It really was out of character for Mike and it certainly could have been done better. But at the end of the day, Louis finds out about Mike and is using this as leverage to get his name on the wall.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Maybe it was indeed a calculated risk on Mike's part. He does feel like he owes Louis big time.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

scooterboy said:


> Maybe it was indeed a calculated risk on Mike's part. He does feel like he owes Louis big time.


This would be interesting if true.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

scooterboy said:


> Maybe it was indeed a calculated risk on Mike's part. He does feel like he owes Louis big time.


That makes sense. The second time he mentioned it could have been deliberate.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

They're determined to get blood out of the "Mike didn't go to Harvard" stone. 

I wonder how they're going to spin Louis becoming a named partner angle to the other non-named, almost always invisible other partners, especially after he resigned.

Katrina was the most loyal assistant in the universe.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

scooterboy said:


> Maybe it was indeed a calculated risk on Mike's part. He does feel like he owes Louis big time.


My wife speculated he would purposely out himself in the season finale to get Louis back... I don't think so though. The vibe I got from the episode was that the key was something not widely known about outside of the actual magna cum laude graduates. Mike not having actually been one, had no way to know about it. The certificate and the medal, yes, but not the key.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I really liked that everyone was trying to help Louis and he rejected it over and over. Then he stood up to Jessica loudly and clearly. 

I mean, it would have been nice if Louis could have gotten a new job or taken a client and but I like the new Louis. I hope we don't lose all of the old Louis but this guy has grown some. 

Mike meeting with Rachel's dad was a good idea and it did take a moment to show how really valuable Louis was to his firm. Not just cases and clients but also training newbies.

I was however waiting for, as Rachel said, the other shoe to drop. I expected that once Louis got the ONE client needed for the job, the father would say "oh well, we can't hire someone that would do that, it was just a test".


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I was hoping Jessica would kill Louis and we could have next season turn into anything better than more penis size contests inside the firm.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

dswallow said:


> I was hoping Jessica would kill Louis and we could have next season turn into anything better than more penis size contests inside the firm.


It's not a contest at this point. Jessica has the biggest by far.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

One of the best parts of the finale was that Malone wasn't in it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

wprager said:


> Me three. She's become a one-dimensional B-word. Vindictive without any good reason to do what she does other than spite. I mean, when Harvey (the human stone) tells you to show a little compassion you know you've stepped way over the "high-functional sociopath" line.


I don't remember Jessica being such a biatch as she has been this season. She's over the top biatchy. Oh and she's hot? Huh?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I don't buy that Louis would totally dis Harvey like he did multiple times in this episode. Harvey got him a job that most lawyers would kill for, and Louis doesn't communicate that he's grateful but is going to politely decline, he just doesn't show up. Then he does the same thing a second time. That's just not like Louis, who values Harvey's respect above almost all else, to completely hang Harvey out to dry like that.

If we find out Mike gave Louis the clues about the key on purpose, then I think that will ruin the show for me. I'd much rather have Mike simply have made a mistake than to have him be so smart and so omnipotent that he orchestrated a way for Louis to get his job back while at the same time exposing himself and the firm.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

At this point one might wonder why Mike doesn't go for "Pearson, Specter, Litt & Ross".

Or is that going to be the Season 5 Finale?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't buy that Louis would totally dis Harvey like he did multiple times in this episode. Harvey got him a job that most lawyers would kill for, and Louis doesn't communicate that he's grateful but is going to politely decline, he just doesn't show up. Then he does the same thing a second time. That's just not like Louis, who values Harvey's respect above almost all else, to completely hang Harvey out to dry like that.
> 
> If we find out Mike gave Louis the clues about the key on purpose, then I think that will ruin the show for me. I'd much rather have Mike simply have made a mistake than to have him be so smart and so omnipotent that he orchestrated a way for Louis to get his job back while at the same time exposing himself and the firm.


Louis is mad. And hurt. And not really thinking straight because of something he got himself into and it has ruined him.

I felt bad for Harvey, Mike and Donna - all of whom reached out to him but I hope that they can understand that Louis is just in a state of mind that doesn't seem, well, himself. Or at least the Louis we know and love. Though that final scene with Jessica was gold.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

dswallow said:


> At this point one might wonder why Mike doesn't go for "Pearson, Specter, Litt & Ross".
> 
> Or is that going to be the Season 5 Finale?


Spoiler??


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't buy that Louis would totally dis Harvey like he did multiple times in this episode.


Wasn't it not too long ago that Harvey was trying to steal the firm from Jessica? These are cutthroat people. None of them (except mike) are very nice. They seem to respect screwing each other over.

Louis did try to work with what Harvey did for him, he did seem generally appreciative. He asked for a simple favor from the firm, three clients, and was denied it. He tried to cozy up with Sheila. Didn't work. The only remaining scrap of identity he had was as a New York lawyer. He allowed himself to be manipulated into stealing a client (Louis being manipulated is a theme for this season). That all seems in character to me.

What I don't get was why he was so angry at Donna (and Harvey). Concealing mike's lack of education was no slight against Louis. I can see why he's mad at Jessica (for denying him the three clients) but I'm lost as to why he was violently angry at everyone else.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

smbaker said:


> What I don't get was why he was so angry at Donna (and Harvey). Concealing mike's lack of education was no slight against Louis. I can see why he's mad at Jessica (for denying him the three clients) but I'm lost as to why he was violently angry at everyone else.


It wasn't a slight against Louis until he effectively got fired for making a bad choice, yet he just found out that Harvey also made a bad choice and instead of getting fired, Jessica, Donna, and Rachel have all been complicit in concealing and perpetuating Harvey's mistake. So now when Louis compares what he did to what Harvey did, and how Jessica and the rest of the firm handled those two situations, he has every reason to be pissed.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I wish Mike would die offscreen during hiatus.

So tired of "Mike didn't go to Harvard"


----------

