# Suits - spoiler discussion about this season



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

What a freaking joke of a season. Enough with all the betrayals. Every single episode this season, someone betrays someone else. Please get back to cases. This main Ava Hessington arc is out of control. Anyone else annoyed with this?


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

This was one of my favorite shows and I still record, watch and store it in my Plex library. However, I'm also a little sick of the betrayals. Mike/Harvey/Jessica/Donna and sometimes Louis are better when they work together against outsiders. A couple of episodes ago, I was hoping Harvey was pretending to betray Jessica as a way to get the Brits out after the firm has stabilized. 

I do like Donna's new love interest and Louis' British counterpart though.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

If this is supposed to be a Season 3 spoiler thread, then it should specify "Season 3" in the subject.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

whitson77 said:


> What a freaking joke of a season. Enough with all the betrayals. Anyone else annoyed with this?


yes - this is a pretty clear example of a GREAT first season TV show with Burn Noticitis - that didn't have a clue what to do with itself and assumed a main plot of Harvey having an enemy trying to take over the firm had to be played out over and over again for the life of the show. WRONG.

the worst part is how they keep having Harvey and Jessica go from partners to enemies within a couple of episodes over and over. zzzzzzzzzz.

i haven't watched this week's episode yet but the mere idea of


Spoiler



them devoting an episode going back 10 years - do we really need to see Mike Ross as a frat boy pot head whatever wunderkind at whatever age he would have been 10 years ago?


 makes me want to hit the fast forward button.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I still like the show. Yeah, I'm not crazy about the plot line, but it kind of reminds me a little of Mad Men. I don't think it's jumped the shark yet, or even gotten close to shark infested waters.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

john4200 said:


> If this is supposed to be a Season 3 spoiler thread, then it should specify "Season 3" in the subject.


I said "this" season. If that isn't enough for you don't come in the thread and troll. People current on the show know what season I was talking about about.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

I've been a big fan since the beginning but after a few episodes this season I've killed the season pass. Sometimes writers just run out of good ideas and start going around in circles. I think they made a mistake in not having Mike working with Louis. Louis has actually become a more interesting character than Harvey.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Bob Coxner said:


> I've been a big fan since the beginning but after a few episodes this season I've killed the season pass. Sometimes writers just run out of good ideas and start going around in circles. I think they made a mistake in not having Mike working with Louis. Louis has actually become a more interesting character than Harvey.


I liked the dynamic of Mike and Louis. That was probably the best episode of the season. I also don't like that they went to one case for the whole season, especially since I don't find the case all that interesting.

I think they need to go back to the original premise of Mike not really being a lawyer and doing what he has to hide the secret. Maybe they will address it during the battle for control of the firm and the English partner will find out about Mike and use it as ammo.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

While it's true that this season's plots are not as interesting as last season's, Donna's still there so that makes it must-see TV for me.


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

^^^ sigh.

Anyways....

Is it me or did the writers just discover the word "_*S*ugar*H*oney*I*ce*T*ea_" existed cuz they have been overkilling it almost every episode.

Agree with it having a severe case of "_Burn Noticitis_™" I used to think Suits was the last must see show on USA. Now... not so much.

(*™_Cainebj_)

Didn't like the flashbacks. Disliked the Donna/Harvey reveal. Would have been better to keep us wondering. Also Mikes flashback side story with the frat jock(s) feels unresolved.

The whole flashback thing would have been better served if it gave more background to Jessica/Harvey and Harvey/Louis.

Just my $0.02

Still watch for Donna though.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Still going to watch, just for Donna. But I use the FF button a lot with this show.

I also think the episode where Mike and Louis worked together was great, and I wished that had gone on for more than one episode.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Bob Coxner said:


> I think they made a mistake in not having Mike working with Louis. Louis has actually become a more interesting character than Harvey.


That is what both my wife and I thought as well. Louis is probably my favorite character now.

ETA:

LOL on the: "Is it me or did the writers just discover the word "SugarHoneyIceTea" existed cuz they have been overkilling it almost every episode."

That Mike and Rachel back and forth a few episodes back was just painful...


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Yeah, was just thinking the same thing after last night's episode. It's just getting annoying how all they ever do is fight amongst themselves and with the DA; everything's a personal fight. It's hard to believe any client would keep them around for long since they barely do any work anymore. And you'd never know the skills Mike used to be able to get into this position in the first place -- they've basically completely forgotten one of the reasons he can do so well. I could even forgive the Harvey/Jessica arguments and fights if they'd contrast that with shifting towards a positive Mike/Louis or even Mike/Louis/migration-of-Donna-away-from-Harvey plot. Even now there's quite a lot of potential to take this story in interesting directions, but it seems like some "network suit" decided "conflict conflict conflict" is why people watch and forget that even conflict needs to be for intelligent, discernible reasons, not conflict-for-the-sake-of-conflict.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm still liking the show, but for the first several episodes of the season when at least two of the old gang were fighting amonst themselves, it really felt like they had lost their mojo. I'm not as annoyed if Harvey and Jessica are at odds, because their relationship has always seemed a little strained. But Mike and Rachel and Donna and Harvey need to be getting along for the show to work. And it's better when Louis is a part of the group as well.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Snappa77 said:


> Is it me or did the writers just discover the word "_*S*ugar*H*oney*I*ce*T*ea_" existed cuz they have been overkilling it almost every episode.


They cuss way more on this show than any other non-subscription show I watch. I'm definitely no prude but the flashback episode had so much cussing in it that it took me out of the show because my mind kept going "Another one!" every time somebody cussed. Is there any other non-premium channel show with anywhere near this amount of cuss words?

They totally blew it by not having Mike work for Louis for a while. That would have been interesting and fun. I can't stand Harvey. He's probably the least likable major character on any of the shows I watch. I definitely wouldn't want to be friends with him in real life.

Do law firms just slap a new name on the masthead overnight like they did in this episode. Aren't there other major partners in the firm who should be consulted?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I think the Mike-Rachel bit with the "Sugar Honey Iced Tea" was some sort of homage to the episode of The Wire where two detectives used nothing but the F-word in examining a crime scene. For three solid minutes, IIRC.

(I probably don't recall 100% correctly -- I was reminded about it by a chapter in Alan Sepinwall's "The Revolution Was Televised." Great book.)


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> I think the Mike-Rachel bit with the "Sugar Honey Iced Tea" was some sort of homage to the episode of The Wire where two detectives used nothing but the F-word in examining a crime scene. For three solid minutes, IIRC.


I agree, there is no question this is what they are going for. But it was just poorly done. And the S word was probably used 40 times that episode. It was like cursing for cursing sake.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Did I mishear or did Mike drop the mother of all SugarHoney words in the episode last night?


----------



## aaronw (Apr 13, 2001)

I agree, I've gotten so confused as to what the actual case was actually about, and how mike sold out jessica (or was it harvey?) that I'm fairly lost at this point as to what the motivations are.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Did I mishear or did Mike drop the mother of all SugarHoney words in the episode last night?


I know he said something close to it at least one time. But I thought I did hear the F bomb the second time. But he may have just being saying something really close to yuck.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

whitson77 said:


> I know he said something close to it at least one time. But I thought I did hear the F bomb the second time. But he may have just being saying something really close to yuck.


When he was quoting Pulp Fiction I thought he said motherf**** but he may have said something like it.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> While it's true that this season's plots are not as interesting as last season's, Donna's still there so that makes it must-see TV for me.





Snappa77 said:


> ^^^ sigh.
> 
> Anyways....
> 
> ...


I don't get it. You point up to my post above, say "sigh", then basically agree with me at the end of your post. Why did I earn a "sigh"?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Snappa77 said:


> ^^^ sigh.
> 
> (*_Cainebj_)


HA thanks for the trademark.

I think snappa was sighing at Donna.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> HA thanks for the trademark.
> 
> I think snappa was sighing at Donna.


No, he was sighing at a spammer that was in-between your posts. So it was directed at the spammer not you. LOL. But it looks really funny now.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

whitson77 said:


> No, he was sighing at a spammer that was in-between your posts. So it was directed at the spammer not you. LOL. But it looks really funny now.


Well then...never mind.


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

Ouch. 

Yeah it was for the spammer post that was in between ours. lol.

Was a huge spam block. (never understood that stuff... i can't imagine there are ppl who see that and decide to click on or go to whatever they are selling.)

Back to the show... quick question.... if Rachel goes to any other school besides Harvard she has zero shot on getting a job at the firm right?


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Harvey's an annoying guy but I wouldn't kick him out of bed. So I'll keep watching regardless.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Snappa77 said:


> Back to the show... quick question.... if Rachel goes to any other school besides Harvard she has zero shot on getting a job at the firm right?


The firm supposedly has never hired anyone that didn't go to Harvard, but that doesn't mean they couldn't change that policy in the future, or make an exception for their best paralegal turned attorney.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> The firm supposedly has never hired anyone that didn't go to Harvard, but that doesn't mean they couldn't change that policy in the future, or make an exception for their best paralegal turned attorney.


Especially since she would be likely to have both Harvey's and Louis' support.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

After this season, I have decided the show would be improved immensely if Jessica could just be gone. Oh, and take the Brits with her. I enjoyed the show much more when it was more about Harvey and Mike and their cases rather than who's pissed at who, who stabbed who in the back, who has a big personal grudge, and some season-long never ending convoluted case that I can't even keep track of any more.

Which brings up a point. Why was the oil company CEO being charged in the US in the first place for something that I think happened in a foreign country? Wouldn't that country have to have her extradited to stand trial in their country for violating their laws?


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Oh no! I hope Jessica stays. Besides her passive aggressive yet cut-throat manner, I love watching what she wears to the office.

(I'm thinking that the actress might have better career alternatives that await her though. )


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Flop said:


> After this season, I have decided the show would be improved immensely if Jessica could just be gone. Oh, and take the Brits with her. I enjoyed the show much more when it was more about Harvey and Mike and their cases rather than who's pissed at who, who stabbed who in the back, who has a big personal grudge, and some season-long never ending convoluted case that I can't even keep track of any more.
> 
> Which brings up a point. Why was the oil company CEO being charged in the US in the first place for something that I think happened in a foreign country? Wouldn't that country have to have her extradited to stand trial in their country for violating their laws?


Yes, that's a great point. Both the bribery charge and the murder charge should have been brought in the jurisdiction where they allegedly occurred, not in the US. So it's all a bunch of BS anyway. But of course, they need the case for the plot, so the ultra-smart lawyers at Pearson _________ would never think of the jurisdiction issue.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Totally agree what's been said. They are just making all the characters unlikeable. 
Gotta get rid of the oil/murder storyline.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I love the show. I love Harvey and Mike. That said, it was fun to watch Louis and Mike together. 

As others have said, this story arc needs to end like...now. Way overdrawn. 

I did chuckle at the Brit calling Jessica out for getting on a plane to London just to meet with him for a few minutes on the sidewalk. I mean really, who does that?


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I also preferred when the show was about Harvey being the bad cop and Mike being the good cop as they worked cases together.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

sushikitten said:


> Harvey's an annoying guy but I wouldn't kick him out of bed. So I'll keep watching regardless.


Buzzfeed, I think it was, did a countdown of the 50 hottest Jewish men in Hollywood, and Gabriel Macht (Harvey) was number 9 or 10....ooooohhh, baby........


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I did chuckle at the Brit calling Jessica out for getting on a plane to London just to meet with him for a few minutes on the sidewalk. I mean really, who does that?


I believe it was Toronto, not London.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Azlen said:


> When he was quoting Pulp Fiction I thought he said motherf**** but he may have said something like it.


The closed captions said "mother flecker".


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Flop said:


> Which brings up a point. Why was the oil company CEO being charged in the US in the first place for something that I think happened in a foreign country? Wouldn't that country have to have her extradited to stand trial in their country for violating their laws?


I've been wondering about this since the beginning of the story arc. There must be a legal reason. I find it hard to believe the writers are that dumb.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Yes, that's a great point. Both the bribery charge and the murder charge should have been brought in the jurisdiction where they allegedly occurred, not in the US. So it's all a bunch of BS anyway. But of course, they need the case for the plot, so the ultra-smart lawyers at Pearson _________ would never think of the jurisdiction issue.


Foreign Corrupt Practices Act http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. ("FCPA"), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.

However, that's a federal law and this case is supposedly being dealt with by the Manhattan District Attorney's office (NY State, not federal). Also, the law only affects US companies or when the bribery takes place inside the US - neither of which apply in this case.

As for the local DA handling a murder case that happened in Africa, that's really a joke.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

ADG said:


> I believe it was Toronto, not London.


Okay, I just got the feeling it was a bit of a ride for a 5 minute meeting. And I think the british guy did too.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Okay, I just got the feeling it was a bit of a ride for a 5 minute meeting. And I think the british guy did too.


Although it was kinda fun when he came to NY to tell her something and she threw that line back in his face.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

betts4 said:


> Okay, I just got the feeling it was a bit of a ride for a 5 minute meeting. And I think the british guy did too.


It was Toronto.

Even though it isn't that far from NY to Toronto it's still crazy to fly there when it can be done over the phone.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

betts4 said:


> I love the show. I love Harvey and Mike. That said, it was fun to watch Louis and Mike together.
> 
> As others have said, this story arc needs to end like...now. Way overdrawn.
> 
> I did chuckle at the Brit calling Jessica out for getting on a plane to London just to meet with him for a few minutes on the sidewalk. I mean really, who does that?


It was Toronto. The CN Tower was in the background.









I've recently noticed a "Canadian Casting" in the credits, looks like they are filming in Toronto. Is it new this season?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

AeneaGames said:


> It was Toronto.
> 
> Even though it isn't that far from NY to Toronto it's still crazy to fly there when it can be done over the phone.


It almost looked like it was done in-your-face on purpose. They are definitely filming the show in Toronto but I am not sure this was done in previous seasons. It's almost like they wanted to shout out "We are now filming in Hogtown!"


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

wprager said:


> It was Toronto. The CN Tower was in the background.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, has been since the first season. You didn't know they shot in Toronto? That surprises me!


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

wprager said:


> It almost looked like it was done in-your-face on purpose. They are definitely filming the show in Toronto but I am not sure this was done in previous seasons. It's almost like they wanted to shout out "We are now filming in Hogtown!"


As far as I know it has always been shot in Toronto, but this was the one scene where they didn't have to pretend to be in New York so they made it pretty obvious


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

AeneaGames said:


> As far as I know it has always been shot in Toronto, but this was the one scene where they didn't have to pretend to be in New York so they made it pretty obvious


Really? I'm over on the Orphan Black thread complaining about audio production values in Toronto, how I can always spot those shows (as opposed to Vancouver ones). Now I feel foolish -- but Orphan Black has a pretty bad score which additionally drowns out the dialog. I don't have a similar issue with Suits (although I always watch with subtitles; for Orphan Black I could not find a subtitle file that was in synch with the video).


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Graymalkin said:


> I think the Mike-Rachel bit with the "Sugar Honey Iced Tea" was some sort of homage to the episode of The Wire where two detectives used nothing but the F-word in examining a crime scene. For three solid minutes, IIRC.
> 
> (I probably don't recall 100% correctly -- I was reminded about it by a chapter in Alan Sepinwall's "The Revolution Was Televised." Great book.)


It also reminded me of the South Park episode, probably 10 or more years ago, which was something like "The night of 1000 SH**S" where toward the end they tried to cram in as many of them as they could. (It might be the first basic cable show I could remember where they didn't bleep out the curse words).

FX has always let curse words go, but USA Network never used them...I think Suits was the first show I could remember that they let it go. It doesn't bother me unless it's over used in places where we wouldn't use it in normal conversation. If Harvey goes "You're full of...." I'm fine with it. If they just use the word as an exclamation at the end of the sentence, then, it bothers me a little. Then it just seems like it's being used for shock value.

On this last episode, it's the first time I remember ANYONE using the MF curse on basic cable.

Also, if you don't want to deal with the cursing, simply record the morning repeats of the episodes. They blank them out.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Regina said:


> Buzzfeed, I think it was, did a countdown of the 50 hottest Jewish men in Hollywood, and Gabriel Macht (Harvey) was number 9 or 10....ooooohhh, baby........


But he's not a Jewish Doctor, and only plays a lawyer on TV. Moma wouldn't approve


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

AeneaGames said:


> As far as I know it has always been shot in Toronto, but this was the one scene where they didn't have to pretend to be in New York so they made it pretty obvious


According to IMDB it's filmed in both NY and Toronto. The external shots DO look like NY to me. Maybe just the externals are filmed in NY? FWIW they list NY first, not sure if that matters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> On this last episode, it's the first time I remember ANYONE using the MF curse on basic cable.


He didn't use the MF curse. He said Mother Flecker.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> He didn't use the MF curse. He said Mother Flecker.


If he said that, it sure wasn't very clear. I relayed it three times and each time it sounded exactly like the curse word to me.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

wprager said:


> Really? I'm over on the Orphan Black thread complaining about audio production values in Toronto, how I can always spot those shows (as opposed to Vancouver ones). Now I feel foolish -- but Orphan Black has a pretty bad score which additionally drowns out the dialog. I don't have a similar issue with Suits (although I always watch with subtitles; for Orphan Black I could not find a subtitle file that was in synch with the video).


Yeah I know you said that in the Orphan Black thread, hence why I also said in another reply that I found it weird you hadn't noticed it 

There are many shows that are actually filmed in Toronto, some you might know about either like Covert Affairs, Falling Skies, Hannibal, etc.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> According to IMDB it's filmed in both NY and Toronto. The external shots DO look like NY to me. Maybe just the externals are filmed in NY? FWIW they list NY first, not sure if that matters.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt


I've searched for it, most of it is filmed in Toronto but once a year they go to NY for some exterior shots. So it's still a Toronto production...


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> He didn't use the MF curse. He said Mother Flecker.


"Mother Flecker" was used on a couple of occasions. Reminds me of "Fast Times" being shown on CTV (Canada), the scene after they destroy Forest Whitaker's Corvette, the kid says "He's gonna slit!" -- and then he repeats it a few times.

Anyhow, it was ironic how Mike ribs Omar about not properly quoting Pulp Fiction and then he himself says "mother flecker". Or is that not a proper definition of irony?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

AeneaGames said:


> Yeah I know you said that in the Orphan Black thread, hence why I also said in another reply that I found it weird you hadn't noticed it
> 
> There are many shows that are actually filmed in Toronto, some you might know about either like Covert Affairs, Falling Skies, Hannibal, etc.


Three other shows I don't watch. Rookie Blue is the most obvious one (has "made in Canada" all over it).

Anyhow, Orphan Black was pretty good, I'll catch S2 on Space (Canada's version of SyFy), if I can wait long enough. And Suits has been a favorite for my wife and me for a while. Although I have to admit sometimes it gets more complicated than it should -- it's a guilty pleasure show, really, not as deep as it sometimes thinks it is.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Tonight's episode was good enough to put the show back on my top 10 list. Harvey is still annoying but I loved his interaction with Stephen. But then, I like Max Beesley in just about anything.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The 8/27 episode contained 12 s-bombs. Seems low compared to the previous week's episode. 

Louis and Nigel need to just do it and get it out of the way.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

I thought the cat case was pretty painful to watch. But at least it looks like we are nearly done with the Ava Hessington case.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> The 8/27 episode contained 12 s-bombs. Seems low compared to the previous week's episode.
> 
> Louis and Nigel need to just do it and get it out of the way.


Still think that they throw in that word for the sake of throwing it out there. I just get the feeling the writers must have been given some poetic license to use it and they are going to take full advantage of it


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

whitson77 said:


> I thought the cat case was pretty painful to watch. But at least it looks like we are nearly done with the Ava Hessington case.


Yeah, I know we discuss stupid stuff on other shows, but this one was right up there. Seriously they are going to take up the time of a high powered law firm to have some mock trial about which employee owns a cat? Really? It feels to me that they are trying TOO hard to find a story line for Louis. He's much better when he's sniveling at Harvey's feet than this. That's why I think they should have stuck with Mike working for Louis a bit longer. This could have given Louis more to do with the core plot which would have been a lot better. And he becomes a key part of this year's "US against THEM".

The Harvey / Mike stuff with the English partner screwing them was really good though. I like that every so often Mike gets a bit of a comeuppance, showing us that for all his talent, there's thing you might learn in law school that just pretending to be a lawyer can't teach you.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

whitson77 said:


> I thought the cat case was pretty painful to watch. But at least it looks like we are nearly done with the Ava Hessington case.


I thought it was mostly to show us how good a "lawyer" Rachel is, and will be...and YAY! She got accepted to Columbia!


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Regina said:


> I thought it was mostly to show us how good a "lawyer" Rachel is, and will be...and YAY! She got accepted to Columbia!


But not Harvard! What does that foretell! I love her, and this doesn't sit well with me.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

justen_m said:


> But not Harvard! What does that foretell! I love her, and this doesn't sit well with me.


It foretell's nothing. Odds are, by the time she graduates, this show will be done. 

As I said, that whole "cat" thing just didn't sit well with me. But hey, Louis is a fun character. They just need to find more "REAL" stuff for him to do.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

i really do like this show, but as others have stated, i'm tired of the infighting story lines. heck, the last couple episodes last season i lost track of what the heck was going on and how the merger all of a sudden happened.

i hope they find their rythm. The end of this week's episode was an interesting twist, could make the rest of the season fun.



Bob Coxner said:


> Foreign Corrupt Practices Act http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/
> 
> The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. ("FCPA"), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.
> 
> ...


actually the case is handled by DOJ. whats his face used to be the city DA, but now he's was appointed special counsel or something by DOJ. in the last episode you could also clearly see the DOJ seal on his door when Mike visited him.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Steveknj said:


> The Harvey / Mike stuff with the English partner screwing them was really good though. I like that every so often Mike gets a bit of a comeuppance, showing us that for all his talent, there's thing you might learn in law school that just pretending to be a lawyer can't teach you.


I don't follow. What would he have learned in law school from the last episode?


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

AeneaGames said:


> I've searched for it, most of it is filmed in Toronto but once a year they go to NY for some exterior shots. So it's still a Toronto production...


I'm disappointed that Sarah Rafferty has been within a 40 mile radius of me, and I didn't know it. My spidey senses let me down.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

mcb08 said:


> I'm disappointed that Sarah Rafferty has been within a 40 mile radius of me, and I didn't know it. My spidey senses let me down.


I miss the Gawker Stalker map. It was fun to watch sometimes. I guess some took it to the wrong extreme, though.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

dswallow said:


> I miss the Gawker Stalker map. It was fun to watch sometimes. I guess some took it to the wrong extreme, though.


I never knew there was such a thing.


----------



## Howie (May 3, 2004)

The whole cat thing was ridiculous. I used to like this show, but it's trying my patience these days.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Howie said:


> The whole cat thing was ridiculous. I used to like this show, but it's trying my patience these days.


The whole way they're doing the British nemesis for Louis is just ridiculous.
I expect that they'll take a break after ten eps and come back and finish the season in early 2014. I don't expect to be watching then.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

My sons have been re-watching Lost. Last night one of the episodes was The Man from Tallahassee. "Mike" had a small guest role.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I just binge watched the last 3 episodes. God I can't wait till the whole Ava is done and buried. 

I didn't mind the cat trial bit and liked that it gave Rachel a way to show how she has grown from her last bit at a "mock trial". And if it really was a "mock trial" couldn't they have gotten some other associate to play dweeb boy? Though it may not have been as effective. 

And I must say, I loved Harvey beating the crap out of Stephen. I was like "YES!" when Harvey looked at Donna and strode off. I wish the fight had gone on a bit longer. Thought it was odd to be in the bathroom then I thought of all the glass in the office proper and figured it was better that way.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

betts4 said:


> And I must say, I loved Harvey beating the crap out of Stephen. I was like "YES!" when Harvey looked at Donna and strode off. I wish the fight had gone on a bit longer. Thought it was odd to be in the bathroom then I thought of all the glass in the office proper and figured it was better that way.


Bathrooms are the best place to beat the crap out of people - lots of hard surfaces. I think that was one of the first lessons offered up by Michael Weston on Burn Notice.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

wprager said:


> My sons have been re-watching Lost. Last night one of the episodes was The Man from Tallahassee. "Mike" had a small guest role.


I've been re-watching Jack & Bobby and on the episode I watched today "Lost Boys" guest starred "Mike"


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

"Mike" gets around 

I thought the fight was poorly done. I recall there was a scene earlier this season where Harvey was sparring in the ring and he looked like a fish out of water -- perhaps it's not his thing (could have used a body double). And how it ended -- he shoved him against a wall so some mirror got cracked, and that stopped him? The guy is a rugby player; being shoved against a wall would not have fazed him.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

wprager said:


> "Mike" gets around
> 
> I thought the fight was poorly done. I recall there was a scene earlier this season where Harvey was sparring in the ring and he looked like a fish out of water -- perhaps it's not his thing (could have used a body double). And how it ended -- he shoved him against a wall so some mirror got cracked, and that stopped him? The guy is a rugby player; being shoved against a wall would not have fazed him.


I laughed at that too. It's like watching pro rasslin' where repeated blows to the face and stomach don't stop a guy but a hit to the shoulder blades incapacitates him.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

And just when we thought the Ava Hessington case was DONE we realize it isn't...


----------



## Snappa77 (Feb 14, 2004)

I really like Ava Hessington 'nee Stark. But dislike her storyline alot.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I seriously thought last night was the season finale. I can't believe the BS storylines they are bringing out with Lewis.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

whitson77 said:


> And just when we thought the Ava Hessington case was DONE we realize it isn't...


Actually, it is more interesting to me now. The Louis storyline is tired though.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The stuff with Louis was just ridiculous. It would be a total breach of ethics for Harold to dismiss the lawsuit just because Louis bullied him. Either he has a legitimate legal claim, or he doesn't. Louis' blustering would carry no weight. And if Harold caved on a deal like that and screwed over his own client, Harold would probably be looking for another job. Just completely ridiculous.

But then again, since when does this show depict anything having to do with the law in a realistic manner?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

What receptionist would let a lawyer from another law firm into one of its lawyer's office and leave him unattended? It happened twice in this episode.

It's a shame what they've done to the Louis character for the whole season. The fact that he bullied Harold was because of a rope climbing incident in gym class was stupid.

Jessica's the managing partner of the firm but in the real world, could a law firm's managing partner do whatever the heck she feels like doing in managing the firm the way this show portrays?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The stuff with Louis was just ridiculous. It would be a total breach of ethics for Harold to dismiss the lawsuit just because Louis bullied him. Either he has a legitimate legal claim, or he doesn't. Louis' blustering would carry no weight. And if Harold caved on a deal like that and screwed over his own client, Harold would probably be looking for another job. Just completely ridiculous.
> 
> *But then again, since when does this show depict anything having to do with the law in a realistic manner?*


But of course the whole show's premise is based on a scenario that is unrealistic to begin with. I don't mind, the show works for me, more on the interpersonal relationships between the characters than on a realistic law basis. Which is why I am very disappointed in how they treated the Louis character too. The character was great in the "Brackman from LA Law" role of bean counter that every firm needs. Now he's just a clown that could never earn any respect.

I also find it hard to imagine, the way this firm acts, that EVERYONE would be top of their class at Harvard.

Still, I find the show enjoyable and I'll keep watching, but they need to get back more to Mike on the brink of getting "caught" every week


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> they need to get back more to Mike on the brink of getting "caught" every week


Ugh, that would be dreadful.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

Eh, too many shows fall apart when they try to go down the road of developing some sort of 'life' for the characters. Instead of focusing on the original premise of the show (burn notice is a fine bad example of this). Suits has pretty much made the same mistake.

Or maybe there's some advertising dollars voodoo involved that says it's more profitable to veer off on such utterly stupid tangents because there's an utterly stupid audience than buys into this nonsense. And keeping their rapt attention allows for more advertising profits conning the companies that buy the ad air time. No doubt the metrics exist for calculating it. Me, when I get the sense the show's going down that road I bail. Suits, Burn Notice and a host of others before... Is there some cutesy 'jumped the shark' term for this syndrome?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

It's a crime what they did to the Louis character this season. Love letters to a cat. Jeez.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

I'm just fast forwarding anything to do with him now. It's insane to think that he'd sign something because another lawyer didn't do stuff TO HIS OWN CAT


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm also surprised that anybody not named Jessica and that Darby guy are signing anything important. Louis and Scottie are junior partners.


----------



## DavidTigerFan (Aug 18, 2001)

Louis specifically asked her if he had permission to sign as her.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I'm just fast forwarding anything to do with him now. It's insane to think that he'd sign something because another lawyer didn't do stuff TO HIS OWN CAT


Just awful.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> It's a crime what they did to the Louis character this season. Love letters to a cat. Jeez.


This.

I almost had some hope when they gave him back his associates. This cat thing is ridiculous.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

DavidTigerFan said:


> Louis specifically asked her if he had permission to sign as her.


But what knucklehead would do that without at least seeing a draft of the document.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

DavidTigerFan said:


> I'm just fast forwarding anything to do with him now. It's insane to think that he'd sign something because another lawyer didn't do stuff TO HIS OWN CAT


Why would that make him sabotage the negotiation? I'm glad he was redeemed and gained some respect but that didn't make sense to me.

I did like how Zane respected Mike for playing hardball. Rachel needs to put on her big girl panties, IMO, if she plans to be a lawyer.

The beginning of this episode with Donna and Harvey was too cute.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Beryl said:


> Why would that make him sabotage the negotiation? I'm glad he was redeemed and gained some respect but that didn't make sense to me.
> 
> I did like how Zane respected Mike for playing hardball. *Rachel needs to put on her big girl panties, IMO, if she plans to be a lawyer. *


This. If there is one character I would love to see gone, it would be Rachel. Gone, gone, gone.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

betts4 said:


> This. If there is one character I would love to see gone, it would be Rachel. Gone, gone, gone.


I like Rachel, I just don't feel like they utilize her enough. And I liked her scene with Mike toward the beginning.

The whole Louis and the Cat thing was ridiculous, both when they first introduced it and in this episode. The thing about Louis, was that he was an annoying sniveling person, but an excellent lawyer when it comes to business law. They've said it and showed it before this season, and he wasn't the type to get rattled. This season they made him totally incompetent, and over a cat. I don't think you make partner acting like that. They really ruined his character for me.

This whole season has just seemed very convoluted to me. Too many twists and turns that hardly make sense. I didn't like that the whole season was on one case. Seemed like they had no other clients.

Oh, and how much did Samsung pay to become "the major client they wanted to get".


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Oh, and how much did Samsung pay to become "the major client they wanted to get".


How much money does Michael Jordan get when Harvey name drops him in every other episode?

I did like the "You just got Litt up" mug. Louis supposedly loves mentoring the associates but he dropped them like a hot potato to become the quartermaster - the guy who orders things like pens and granola bars - just to spite the British guy with the ears.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> How much money does Michael Jordan get when Harvey name drops him in every other episode?
> 
> I did like the "You just got Litt up" mug. Louis supposedly loves mentoring the associates but he dropped them like a hot potato to become the quartermaster - the guy who orders things like pens and granola bars - just to spite the British guy with the ears.


Didn't he lose a bet with the British guy and had to give up the mentoring in order to become the quartermaster? I forgot how that whole thing went down.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

When Louis got the Quartermaster job, it meant he could no longer mentor the associates. He didn't drop them - he just didn't realize that he would lose them.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Didn't he lose a bet with the British guy and had to give up the mentoring in order to become the quartermaster? I forgot how that whole thing went down.


Now I'm stuck trying to remember this craptastic subplot. Didn't the British guy discontinue buying the granola bars that Louis liked and banned them from the building or something stupid like that while he was quartermaster? Then something happened and Louis ended up being quartermaster and Capt. Ears took over mentoring. An awful, awful season long subplot.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

They turned Louis into less of a lawyer, which makes me sad. Love letters to a cat was just ridiculous.

Now, next week's episode makes me think bad things about Mike.


Spoiler



He tells Rachael that her going to Stanford will be the end of their relationship, and that he'll break up with her if she goes, or something like that. What a pansy! It's not like you can't attempt a long distance relationship. It's only 3 years or something like that.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

cheesesteak said:


> Now I'm stuck trying to remember this craptastic subplot. Didn't the British guy discontinue buying the granola bars that Louis liked and banned them from the building or something stupid like that while he was quartermaster? Then something happened and Louis ended up being quartermaster and Capt. Ears took over mentoring. An awful, awful season long subplot.


Ears became a dictator of a quartermaster to trick Louis into wanting to be qm so that he could take over Louis' position with the newbies.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Now, next week's episode makes me think bad things about Mike.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I generally expect things like that aired in previews are intentionally edited to be misleading.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Now, next week's episode makes me think bad things about Mike.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


My DVR cut off before the previews so I didn't see this, but I agree-probably edited to fool us-or maybe...



Spoiler



Maybe Mike really wants Rachel to go to Stanford and she is hemming and hawing, doesn't want to go 3,000 miles away, and he says he will break up with her if she _doesn't_ go...or something to that effect. Or maybe he says he will break up with her for now then they can get back together when she gets back...who knows? I hope she goes to Stanford, what an opportunity! (Yes, I know these aren't real people LOL)


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

dswallow said:


> I generally expect things like that aired in previews are intentionally edited to be misleading.


I thought the same thing.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Good point. However, I was watching an episode of Rookie Blue (a trailer for the season finale) and saw a major character get shot. No misleading there. It really ticked me off.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Good point. However, I was watching an episode of Rookie Blue (a trailer for the season finale) and saw a major character get shot. No misleading there. It really ticked me off.


That's pretty bad, but I was watching "The Pitch" on AMC, and



Spoiler



they had the first company pitch their campaign, then when they broke for a commercial, the announcer said, "You just saw the winning pitch! Go to - whatever website it was - and see what's going on with the campaign!" 
Um-WE HADN'T EVEN SEEN THE SECOND COMPANY'S PITCH YET!!!


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

OK, I'm a bit lost, and perhaps my lack of understanding of the university landscape in the US is not helping me. Columbia is "here" and Stanford is "way over there", but Harvard is neither one of them. So I really don't understand what leverage Jessica had to force Rachel to go away. It made no sense to me. Sign this affidavit or you will not work here -- but the Harvard rule had not yet been breached, so going to Standford still meant she would not work here. What am I missing? 

As I was watching the episode (it airs one day later up here) I kept thinking that Jessica would be really concerned about Mike and Rachel splitting up -- surely it would be more likely that she wouldn't have kept the secret if she was no-longer involved? Maybe even spill the beans to her mother in a post-breakup scene? I thought, for sure, that Jessica would be trying to make sure that they stay together, and would actually offer to waive the Harvard rule.

I just feel like I'm either missing something or the writers just messed up a bit.

Oh, and the files of *all* the lawyers that ever went to Harvard only has enough Rosses to count on one hand? There are many scenes like this where I have to laugh -- like Mike writing up some brilliant argument for some case, shows the file folder to Harvey as they walk through the corridor and Harvey, without missing a step, says something like "Wow, did you come up with that all on your own?" Or, last episode, Louis opening the fie on that hot-shot lawyer and in 1 second flat saying "He is exactly what I need".


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

wprager said:


> OK, I'm a bit lost, and perhaps my lack of understanding of the university landscape in the US is not helping me. Columbia is "here" and Stanford is "way over there", but Harvard is neither one of them. So I really don't understand what leverage Jessica had to force Rachel to go away. It made no sense to me. Sign this affidavit or you will not work here -- but the Harvard rule had not yet been breached, so going to Standford still meant she would not work here. What am I missing?
> 
> As I was watching the episode (it airs one day later up here) I kept thinking that Jessica would be really concerned about Mike and Rachel splitting up -- surely it would be more likely that she wouldn't have kept the secret if she was no-longer involved? Maybe even spill the beans to her mother in a post-breakup scene? I thought, for sure, that Jessica would be trying to make sure that they stay together, and would actually offer to waive the Harvard rule.
> 
> ...


You are missing something. Rachel didn't get into Harvard. Thus she can't work at Pierson, Spector, wtf ever firm per their "rule". They inferred that if Rachel left she wouldn't come back and they would be "over". The affidavit was to protect the firm I guess. Kinda strange but they kinda used it as a Dues Ex Machina to "keep" Rachel. She goes to school locally at Columbia, stays with Mike, and can work at the firm. Rachel negotiated the deal to sign the affidavit and have Jessica waive the Harvard rule.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

I really used to like this show. And it has gotten so bad (for me at least) I probably won't watch another season. 

The Louis discovery had me thinking next season won't interest me if that is the main arc. I was hoping we were done with that...

I wanted them to work well together and the drama be in the courtroom. Not in the offices. But it seems like the writers have taken this show to focus on the backstabbing and infighting. Oh well...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

As soon as the Harvard lady said the records of every Harvard law graduate were in the room it was pretty obvious that they were going to bring back the Mike is a fraud plot line. I'm hoping for a final resolution on that but not really expecting it.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I was disappointed that Mike didn't figure out a way to get some phony records in the Harvard files. Besides that, I enjoyed the episode. 

Donna got the scumbag - again. To think she actually slept with that guy....

Jessica protected her firm from the fraud-leak. If Rachel ever became a REAL lawyer and cutthroat like the rest, she could and should take advantage of that info.

Rachel finally womaned-up and faced off with Jessica for consideration. She and Mike are both too wimpy. They need to be public defenders.

Harvey handled Ava (finally) and did right by Scotty

Louis isn't talking about a cat and his love interest schooled him on not treating her like a "trick".


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

wprager said:


> As I was watching the episode (it airs one day later up here) I kept thinking that Jessica would be really concerned about Mike and Rachel splitting up -- surely it would be more likely that she wouldn't have kept the secret if she was no-longer involved? Maybe even spill the beans to her mother in a post-breakup scene? I thought, for sure, that Jessica would be trying to make sure that they stay together, and would actually offer to waive the Harvard rule.
> 
> I just feel like I'm either missing something or the writers just messed up a bit.


IANAL, but I had trouble with the logic there, too.

Looking at character motivations, Jessica wants to protect the firm. To her, that should mean that she wants to keep Mike's secret away from Zane (Rachel's father), since Zane would be likely to use that information to hurt the firm.

From Rachel's point of view, it would be bad for her if her "secret" -- that she knows Mike's secret -- became known. At a minimum, her knowledge of the scheme (and not telling the authorities) would reflect badly on her future career prospects. And perhaps it could be worse for her than that (possible liability?). So, the best move for Rachel (from Jessica's point of view, since Jessica probably underestimates Rachel's integrity), if Rachel were ever deposed, would be to deny that she knew Mike's secret. If Zane thinks that Rachel will be able to credibly deny knowing it, then he will feel free to go after the firm without possibility of hurting his daughter along the way.

But if Rachel signs a statement saying that she knew Mike's secret, then if Zane ever discovers Mike's secret, then Zane should hesitate to go after the firm, since he might also hurt his daughter.

So far, I think the story holds together. Jessica has a logical reason for trying to get Rachel to sign.

But why does Mike think that Rachel going to Stanford is a solution? 
If Rachel goes to Stanford without signing, I don't see how Jessica would like that, since Rachel could tell Zane and then Zane could hurt the firm. So Jessica would probably still fire Mike if Rachel went to Stanford without signing.

Is Mike thinking that if Rachel does not sign, Jessica will fire Mike, and then Mike will follow Rachel to California? Maybe change his identity and go to law school with her? Just get a non-law job out there? Either way, it does not seem like a very good solution. Perhaps Mike was just not thinking clearly.

Rachel's solution, however, makes perfect sense. Jessica gets what she wants, which is to protect the firm by getting Rachel's signature. Rachel gets what she wants, which is to work for the firm after she graduates, by Jessica waving the Harvard rule. And Mike gets what he wants, which is for Rachel to stay in New York, since it appears that working for the firm and staying with Mike is more important to Rachel than is going to Stanford.

So, the best explanation that I can come up with is that Mike's logic was flawed (which is not necessarily a writing problem -- Mike was emotionally distraught at the time), but Jessica and Rachel were behaving logically.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Beryl said:


> Donna got the scumbag - again. To think she actually slept with that guy....


Did you notice that Donna became something of a hypocrite this episode?

Remember when Jessica threatened Mike with a letter and Mike decided to go behind Harvey's back and do what Jessica wanted? Donna was very upset about how Mike had betrayed Harvey by doing what Jessica wanted, and Donna, quite self-righteously, told Mike off about it.

In this episode, Jessica told Donna not to tell Mike or Rachel that Jessica knew about them, and Donna agreed not to tell them. Even so, I completely expected Donna to tell Mike when she went to his cubicle that night. That would be the loyal (to Harvey and Mike) thing to do, and Donna is all about loyalty to her immediate coworkers, right? But no. Donna did not mention it to Mike at all, and Mike was completely surprised when Jessica showed up at his apartment and threatened him about Rachel.

It seems Donna talks a good game, but when the rubber meets the road, she is not as loyal as she pretends to be.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I liked this episode.

Love the banter between Luis and Sheila(?) about the FEDEX letter.
You didn't hand deliver it to me?
I sent it FEDEX overnight
Overnight 5pm!
AM PM gets there the same time, it's a scam.

or something like that...

I'm getting tired of Scottie.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

john4200 said:


> IANAL, but I had trouble with the logic there, too.
> 
> Looking at character motivations, Jessica wants to protect the firm. To her, that should mean that she wants to keep Mike's secret away from Zane (Rachael's father), since Zane would be likely to use that information to hurt the firm.
> 
> ...


I think to really know if the solutions made sense, we would have to know what the penalty would be for everybody if it became known that Mike is a fraud.

I think the scene played out ok, because Rachel is the one with leverage. She is the only one who wouldn't personally be punished if it were found out, where the other 3 principles would be punished severely.

Did I miss something, do we know that Rachel made the deal, and do we know that the Harvard rule was waived as a part of that deal?

-smak-


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

smak said:


> Did I miss something, do we know that Rachel made the deal, and do we know that the Harvard rule was waived as a part of that deal?


There was no confirmation that Jessica agreed to Rachel's proposal. But I think we can assume that she did, because Rachel did not seem troubled when she visited Mike later.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

john4200 said:


> It seems Donna talks a good game, but when the rubber hits the road, she is not as loyal as she pretends to be.


Good point. I hadn't thought about it that way. Based on her rules, she should have told Harvey if she had time. I can see not telling Mike.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I am NOT looking forward to a new season of Louis or anybody else going after Mike's fraudulent Harvard career and Louis magically being left alone in a room full of every Harvard Law school graduate's hard copy profiles was weak.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Did you notice that Donna became something of a hypocrite this episode?
> ....
> 
> It seems Donna talks a good game, but when the rubber hits the road, she is not as loyal as she pretends to be.


You leave her alone!!


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Sheila Sazs.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

I really think having Rachael sign the document stating that she knew was a way to keep her mouth shut. A mutually assured destruction type of insurance. She can't turn them in without being implicated herself.

As far as Louis alone in the room with all the files of students, I would really imagine that there would be more than what was in those cabinets.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Agatha Mystery said:


> I really think having Rachael sign the document stating that she knew was a way to keep her mouth shut. A mutually assured destruction type of insurance. She can't turn them in without being implicated herself.


No. Well, yes, that may true, but it is not the main reason for the document. The problem is if someone else starts trouble, specifically, her father. She could tell her father, and he could take action, without ever mentioning Rachel. The signed document would discourage her father, since the firm would tell him how they would go after Rachel if Zane came after the firm. I already posted about this.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

john4200 said:


> No. Well, yes, that may true, but it is not the main reason for the document. The problem is if someone else starts trouble, specifically, her father. She could tell her father, and he could take action, without ever mentioning Rachel. The signed document would discourage her father, since the firm would tell him how they would go after Rachel if Zane came after the firm. I already posted about this.


This entire scenario helps me to better understand why Harvey was so mad that he told Rachel. Telling a wife is risky but a girlfriend? And the daughter of Zane? I'll never forget that scene with Specter and Zane on the golf course when Zane offered him a $20 (or some such crazy amount) to settle. Zane is ruthless.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Agatha Mystery said:


> As far as Louis alone in the room with all the files of students, I would really imagine that there would be more than what was in those cabinets.


I know there is a suspension of disbelief, but how could those cabinets not be locked?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Sorry for the thread bump. Just got caught up.



john4200 said:


> Did you notice that Donna became something of a hypocrite this episode?
> 
> Remember when Jessica threatened Mike with a letter and Mike decided to go behind Harvey's back and do what Jessica wanted? Donna was very upset about how Mike had betrayed Harvey by doing what Jessica wanted, and Donna, quite self-righteously, told Mike off about it.
> 
> ...


Donna is loyal to Harvey, not Mike. And frankly, I was a little surprised that Jessica didn't already know. Mike and Rachel are not careful to conceal their feelings for each other around the office, so it never occurred to me they were trying to keep it secret from Jessica. And it makes Jessica look pretty bad that she's the managing partner of the firm yet it took her this long to figure this out?



Azlen said:


> As soon as the Harvard lady said the records of every Harvard law graduate were in the room it was pretty obvious that they were going to bring back the Mike is a fraud plot line. I'm hoping for a final resolution on that but not really expecting it.


That's the basic plot of the show. It's part of the original 30-second pitch. Nothing has been done to fix that problem, so I don't see how it could have a final resolution. Unless Mike either goes to law school and passes the bar, or gets caught, it's always going to be the underlying issue this series has to deal with. I would be irresponsible of them to just sweep it under the rug.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> Donna is loyal to Harvey, not Mike.


That is splitting hairs. Mike is part of Harvey's inner circle and therefore, anyone loyal to Harvey must be an ally to Mike. Especially in this situation, where it is Jessica vs. Mike, there is no doubt that Harvey would support Mike over Jessica. This would all be completely obvious to Donna.

Even if you deny those obvious points, there is still the fact that Donna did not tell Harvey (who would have instantly told Mike).

Donna clearly became a hypocrite with that betrayal of trust. You might claim that she panicked and can therefore be excused. But you could also make the same claim about what Mike did when Jessica attacked, and Donna really let Mike have it for that betrayal.

There is no getting around it. Donna is now a hypocrite. The show really assassinated her character with this episode.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The new season is here. I don't know if anybody wants to start a new thread. Feel free to do so if you like.

I'm not sure I'm going to last the whole season. I was tired of Mike's relationship drama with Rachel last season. That's still here and now we're going to have Harvey and Scottie as a couple and their inevitable back stabbing bs and whatever conflict with Jessica it causes. I still think they waste Louis by making him be a clown and for Pete's sake, please stop the Mike Ross didn't go to Harvard Law witch hunt. It's played out already.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Actually we are in the same season (3) -- the second half. 

I have to agree regarding the Rachel/Mike drama. It was kinda cool when Pappa Zane was introduced but now I don't care. I also don't care about Harvey and Scottie although they also make a cute couple. They need some really interesting cases and one case that consumes and possibly threatens some of their lives. 

I'm wondering what they plan to do to keep fan interest since all of their subplots have been played out.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

This used to be one of my favorite shows, but I wonder if it's just played out. I think part of the problem is that the core set of characters hasn't changed from day one, so there's really not much between any of them that hasn't been done already. Making Scottie a regular might change that, but, it's typical TV storytelling to try and "settle down" the self absorbed ladies man, which is what they are trying to do. Louis' witch hunt about Mike and Harvard is still the only really interesting thing left between these characters. I'll keep watching for awhile because of the eye candy and hope that the stories get better.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I agree - Harvey "settling down" would be sad. But you know, I KNEW he was going to somehow pay that 'buy in' money for Scottie. I think she overreacted a bit when learning of it. I am guessing, it will be her that breaks his heart. She doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that what he is doing is TRYING to change and working at it in the ways that he has seen others do. 

I loved Rachel's IKEA remark about Mike's furniture. You could see it.

And Donna playing Louis about getting information and such was great too.


----------



## Timbeau (May 31, 2002)

I'd love for them to get back to what made this series so good, the law cases and political infighting, but all this personal drama sure drains the life out of the show. It's good to have a bit about the character's personal lives, it makes things interesting, but as a sideline not the main focus.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I agree - Harvey "settling down" would be sad. But you know, I KNEW he was going to somehow pay that 'buy in' money for Scottie. I think she overreacted a bit when learning of it. I am guessing, it will be her that breaks his heart. She doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that what he is doing is TRYING to change and working at it in the ways that he has seen others do.


I expected Harvey to pay half of her buy in but wasn't surprised that he paid all of it with the way she was whining.

I remember a couple of years ago where it seemed like the firm had a lot of senior partners, enough to fill a conference room. Now it just seems to be Jessica, Harvey, Louis (?) and now Scottie.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Louis' witch hunt about Mike and Harvard is still the only really interesting thing left between these characters.


This is my least favorite part, and I wish they would just drop it or conclude it.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

betts4 said:


> And Donna playing Louis about getting information and such was great too.


Best part of the show for me! She is so damn good! And so damn hot!


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

I know that we're supposed to suspend belief, but wouldn't the professor have wondered why he didn't recognize Mike, since all members of the firm went to Harvard, and his Ethics class was mandatory?


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

mcb08 said:


> I know that we're supposed to suspend belief, but wouldn't the professor have wondered why he didn't recognize Mike, since all members of the firm went to Harvard, and his Ethics class was mandatory?


Only the lawyers are supposed to have gone to Harvard. However, there's nothing saying that Mike could have been a paralegal (and they don't have to have gone to Harvard). He was yelled at for not completing some work, but that doesn't mean that he was a lawyer. The ethics professor could have assumed that it was something else. I can see paralegals attending an ethics seminar, and finding it useful. Considering all of the other attorneys (or a vast majority of them) had taken the man's class, there isn't much that they're going to get out of his lecture (unless he's written a new book he wants them to read).


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

That's a valid explanation. For some reason, I thought that Louis was inviting all of the associates to the lecture.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

mcb08 said:


> I know that we're supposed to suspend belief, but wouldn't the professor have wondered why he didn't recognize Mike, since all members of the firm went to Harvard, and his Ethics class was mandatory?


He may have wondered that, but that doesn't mean he's going to verbalize it.
There's no reason to expect that he would remember all of his students ~5 years later.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Considering all of the other attorneys (or a vast majority of them) had taken the man's class, there isn't much that they're going to get out of his lecture (unless he's written a new book he wants them to read).


I doubt his ethics course is all encompassing. There are many things that wouldn't have been covered in his class.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

Bump, as we just now finished the season! (Hubby was deployed when it was originally on and I waited for him and then we were selling the house and then we moved and we just finally made time.)

I actually liked the conclusion with the drama of Mike's secret possibly coming out and the potential job offer and all that. But then again, I'm really not that critical of shows like these.

That said, I really used to like Rachel but she's just become so annoying that I want to slap her. And I did feel really bad for Louis when his relationship went down the toilet.

Starting Season 4 tonight!


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

Was anyone else caught off-guard by the return of Suits yesterday? It looks like it's coming back for 6 episodes, then taking a break before Season 5 starts in June? Seems a bit strange to me.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't know why they all just took Louis's **** about being liars. The appropriate response would be a right cross followed by "And you're a crook, so shut the **** up."


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

Flop said:


> I don't know why they all just took Louis's **** about being liars. The appropriate response would be a right cross followed by "And you're a crook, so shut the **** up."


Seems like Jessica was letting him run before she set the hook.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

mcb08 said:


> Was anyone else caught off-guard by the return of Suits yesterday? It looks like it's coming back for 6 episodes, then taking a break before Season 5 starts in June? Seems a bit strange to me.


They've been breaking the season into two parts like this since season 2 just like a lot of cable tv shows have been doing for years, so no, it wasn't a surprise and it's not strange, it's business as usual.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

CraigK said:


> Seems like Jessica was letting him run before she set the hook.


Harvey and Mike were not in on that plan.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

As soon as Louis became partner, with his knowledge about Mike, I knew he was just as complicit in the issue as the rest of them. I was surprised that anyone, including Louis, was caught off guard by that.


Watching this episode, with a good bit of Jessica in it, I can't help but think how awesome Gina Torres would be as Wonder Woman. She can play a gorgeous, powerful woman. She'd have been a perfect Amazon superhero.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Flop said:


> I don't know why they all just took Louis's **** about being liars. The appropriate response would be a right cross followed by "And you're a crook, so shut the **** up."


I assume they were worried that he is crazy enough to take the fall as long as he brings everyone else down with him. I'd say they are not wrong to be worried.

In a game of chicken, the craziest one (or at least the one perceived as craziest) has a distinct advantage.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

CraigK said:


> Seems like Jessica was letting him run before she set the hook.


It kinda reminded me of when she knew that her former crooked partner would f-up again so they should just hang in there and let him hang himself.

Louis is always doing the opposite of what he is told so he was easily played.

Maybe now we can put "the secret" to rest and move on with interesting cases.

Besides Louis, Daddy Zane is my other favorite character. So ruthless.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I'm really starting to get bored with the series. They just go to the well way too often with Mike's secret being let out. Ruthless Louis is just really annoying.

BTW, and I've probably mentioned it before, but as soon as they let the leash off the writers by allowing them to use the SH word, it now in every other sentence. It's starting to remind me of that episode of South Park where they poked fun at saying it. It's become distracting. If this were a drinking game, we'd be drunk about 10 minutes in.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Steveknj said:


> I'm really starting to get bored with the series. They just go to the well way too often with Mike's secret being let out.


The secret is the entire premise of the show.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Now that pretty much everyone at the firm knows now and has a motive for keeping it secret, maybe it will be put on the back burner for a bit. But I'm sure they'll drag it out again as a season ending cliffhanger when someone outside the firm finds out and threatens to expose it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> Now that pretty much everyone at the firm knows now and has a motive for keeping it secret, maybe it will be put on the back burner for a bit. But I'm sure they'll drag it out again as a season ending cliffhanger when someone outside the firm finds out and threatens to expose it.


Mr. Zane is sure to be an issue at some point.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Mr. Zane is sure to be an issue at some point.


As is Jeff when he figures out Jessica lied to him.

And let's not forget Scottie. The fact that Harvey told her is bound to blow up in his face.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm so tired of all the "Mike's secret" drama. They should have moved on from this long ago. Louis will probably end up doing something really stupid so Mike's punishment will only last a couple of episodes.

When was this season filmed? Louis wants to bring Katrina back but Amanda Schull is a co-star on 12 Monkeys.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Idearat said:


> As soon as Louis became partner, with his knowledge about Mike, I knew he was just as complicit in the issue as the rest of them. I was surprised that anyone, including Louis, was caught off guard by that.


I was thinking that the entire show, and am glad that is what got them out from under Louis' thumb, because it would have been against character for these people who always think of a smart way out of problems to not see such an easy answer.

-smak-


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Luis went from a buffon-like cat fetishist to ruthless-arsehole overnight. I'm trying to hang on but it's getting more difficult. There are no likable/sympathetic characters left. 

As for Katrina, Jessica did tell Luis "That's not happening" and then Rachel convinced her father to take her.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

wprager said:


> Luis went from a buffon-like cat fetishist to ruthless-arsehole overnight. I'm trying to hang on but it's getting more difficult.


I agree. 
It became unbearable to watch that one note for an entire episode.
Move on.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

wprager said:


> As for Katrina, Jessica did tell Luis "That's not happening" and then Rachel convinced her father to take her.


Hmmm. I just checked the tivo and apparently, I stopped watching 25 minutes into the episode. I guess I'm not as into this show as I thought I was.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

I'm glad the show is back. I sense that Louis will revert to true character (brilliant weasel with sincere intentions) and all the threats will come from the outside this season, especially since Mike has interacted with so many outside the firm.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

The green screen shot on the roof at the beginning of the show was just awful. 
How did anyone look at that and think it would be okay?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I barely noticed because I was trying to see what the rails were for.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

john4200 said:


> I barely noticed because I was trying to see what the rails were for.


The camera.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

dswallow said:


> The camera.


Heh. I guess it must be for a trolley to hang a window-washing rig from, but I could not see anything on the rails.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> Heh. I guess it must be for a trolley to hang a window-washing rig from, but I could not see anything on the rails.


I assumed it was for window washing as well. The washing rig was probably just on the other side of the building, out of the shot.


----------

