# Suits! USA Network



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I just watched "Suits" on USA and I love it. I like the energy and the outrageousness, and so far, this is my kinda show. I had a similar response to the first "Burn Notice."

USA Network is really bringing in good show.

We'll have to see how it does over time. Can it live up to the big-bang of the Pilot in future episodes? Will the characters develop to be likeable and relatable? I hope so. 

What did you think, and how did you like it?


----------



## Andrew_S (Nov 12, 2001)

Thought it was one of the stronger pilot episodes that USA has had. It's still pure USA, but also a little darker than their other shows.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I really enjoyed it too. This is my kind of show about lawyers, Franklin and Bash seem way too goofy to me.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

I liked it but didn't like Burn Notice. It has that Psych and Boston Legal mash up feel to it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I liked most of it, but there were a few things that were strange. The courtroom scene was just too wacky to believe, and not particularly funny either. And hiding a briefcase in pizza boxes in the oven? Who is that supposed to fool? Anyone thoroughly searching a room is going to look in the pizza boxes in the oven (as if it is common for people to store 3 large pizza boxes in a cold oven??)


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

I really liked this - I hope it can hold up throughout the season!


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

I really liked it, but it did remind me of White Collar in quite a few ways.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I get that! Come to think of it, the quirky "two guy" theme seems to be flourishing these days.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Yeah, totally like White Collar. Genius young dude that can do anything. A superior who is also awesome in his trade. Not an incompetent handler, but a seasoned pro with experience that can help out his younger genius dude. Same format, different setting. But it works. Same with In Plain Sight. Equal partners. Not just a single Einstein.


----------



## ADG (Aug 20, 2003)

Ridiculous premise with likable characters. Not bad for summer fare.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I agree, Justen. So long as they maintain unique qualities, instead of becoming "me too" shows. It'll be interesting to see how creative they are in developing their own formula.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I just watched it and enjoyed it. It is on a SP now. Hope it maintains.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Not sure if they can maintain the ruthless oneupmanship and snappy patter for more than a couple of episodes.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

rahnbo said:


> I liked it but didn't like Burn Notice. It has that Psych and Boston Legal mash up feel to it.


Agreed. I watch very few TV shows (mostly news and movies) but I do plan to watch Suits again.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I give it a :up: as well.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

justen_m said:


> Yeah, totally like White Collar. Genius young dude that can do anything. A superior who is also awesome in his trade. Not an incompetent handler, but a seasoned pro with experience that can help out his younger genius dude. Same format, different setting. But it works. Same with In Plain Sight. Equal partners. Not just a single Einstein.


oh yeah :up::up: for me.


----------



## Wheens (Jan 1, 2003)

Arnie Becker revisited?


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't know. I'll give it a couple more weeks to grow on me. I didn't like any, not a single one, of the characters for the first half hour. They grew on me as the show progressed. I don't like lawyers shows at all but at least this one has comedic touches.

That law firm must have the worst personnel department this side of CTU. Nobody does a background check on whatshisname? Not with Harvard Law School? Not with wherever he went to college?


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I understand there isn't much warm-fuzzy character development (same as Burn Notice) but the dialogue is good. As ADG said, it's a ridiculous premise, so you must suspend disbelief. 

In reality, any law firm is going to research up the yin-yan and totally vet any prospective associate, let alone a huge and prestigious law firm. And gone are the days when lawyers learn their craft by apprenticeship. Nevertheless, it is a humorous concept.

Hey, I enjoyed the Pilot, so that's 1 hour and 22 minutes of entertainment for me. More, if they can maintain.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

I liked it. Not yet sure if we're supposed to like or dislike his boss.


----------



## sushikitten (Jan 28, 2005)

We enjoyed it, which means its likely due for cancellation any day now.


----------



## sean67854 (Jul 11, 2001)

sushikitten said:


> We enjoyed it, which means its likely due for cancellation any day now.


 USA stuff tends to get longer runs than it would on other networks.

USA almost always hits it out of the park for me. Of all of the USA original shows, while I like some better than others, I can't think of one that I haven't liked enough to make a point of watching.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

What are some other good USA shows? Only ones I remember watching are Monk, Psych and Suits.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

Silk Stalkings. More recently Covert Affairs.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Oh, I watch Covert Affairs. I was thinking that was on TBS.


----------



## sean67854 (Jul 11, 2001)

Hoffer said:


> What are some other good USA shows? Only ones I remember watching are Monk, Psych and Suits.


The ones we watch are:
Burn Notice
In Plain Sight
Royal Pains
Suits
Covert Affairs
Psych
White Collar
Fairly Legal

And we'll be trying Necessary Roughness.

Some of those are better than others, but I think they're all at least as good as the stuff on the regular networks. I think most of them are better.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I liked it. Typical USA Network fare, where you have to suspend belief. But that's ok. it was fun. The one thing that kind of irked me, but it's minor, was that the Unlawyer was so "in your face" toward his new boss and kept wanting to stick it to him. I don't care who you are, but if my new boss stuck his neck out for me like that, I think I'd show him a bit more respect. But I think that it makes the show fun, so I can get past it.

I think USA Network more consistently puts out shows I like more than any other network. Outside of the CSIs, we probably watch just about all of them and enjoy them. I never got into Psych, but I go back on USA to watching The 4400. Always entertaining and fun, even shows in genres that I generally don't like.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

justen_m said:


> Yeah, totally like White Collar. Genius young dude that can do anything. A superior who is also awesome in his trade. Not an incompetent handler, but a seasoned pro with experience that can help out his younger genius dude. Same format, different setting. But it works. Same with In Plain Sight. Equal partners. Not just a single Einstein.


You'll like this: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/usa_shows.html


cheesesteak said:


> That law firm must have the worst personnel department this side of CTU. Nobody does a background check on whatshisname? Not with Harvard Law School? Not with wherever he went to college?


This was my problem. It's not even that they didn't check with Harvard. It's that he would have to pass the bar (as himself) in order to be employed as a lawyer, and he has to be a graduate of an accredited law school in order to sit for the bar. So basically, the boss is in danger of losing his own license because he's aiding someone in the unauthorized practice of law. Seems like they could have easily gotten around this by simply using the explanation that the rookie is still waiting for the state bar to process his application and he's going to work under the boss until it's approved.


megory said:


> In reality, any law firm is going to research up the yin-yan and totally vet any prospective associate, let alone a huge and prestigious law firm. *And gone are the days when lawyers learn their craft by apprenticeship.* Nevertheless, it is a humorous concept.


Actually, it depends what you mean. Most law schools do a very poor job preparing their graduates to actually practice law. Law schools are much more about the theory and teaching students "how to think like a lawyer." But learning how to actually practice law (write motions, perform legal research, communicate with clients and opposing counsel, courtroom procedure) is typically learned on the job, not in law school.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> You'll like this: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/usa_shows.html
> 
> This was my problem. It's not even that they didn't check with Harvard. It's that he would have to pass the bar (as himself) in order to be employed as a lawyer, and he has to be a graduate of an accredited law school in order to sit for the bar. So basically, the boss is in danger of losing his own license because he's aiding someone in the unauthorized practice of law. Seems like they could have easily gotten around this by simply using the explanation that the rookie is still waiting for the state bar to process his application and he's going to work under the boss until it's approved.
> 
> Actually, it depends what you mean. Most law schools do a very poor job preparing their graduates to actually practice law. Law schools are much more about the theory and teaching students "how to think like a lawyer." But learning how to actually practice law (write motions, perform legal research, communicate with clients and opposing counsel, courtroom procedure) is typically learned on the job, not in law school.


I think the premise would have worked better if the lawyer WAS the boss of the firm. At least if he ran the firm, he could have circumvented the background check rules and it would have been more plausible. The "Brackman" (for those who used to watch LA Law, Brackman was the partner who managed the firms day to day ops) like lawyer, seems so straightlaced that there would have been no way that anyone would get hired without any kind of background check. Me thinks that eventually he'll catch on.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Another issue I had with the casting: Gina Torres is three years older than Gabriel Macht. But the character played by Gina Torres was supposedly in enough of a position of authority in the firm that when the Gabriel Macht character started in the mail room, she spotted his potential, paid for him to go to law school, hired him, and now made him a senior partner. Wouldn't she have to be more like 15-20 years older than him for that to make sense?


----------



## jb007 (Mar 17, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Another issue I had with the casting: Gina Torres is three years older than Gabriel Macht. But the character played by Gina Torres was supposedly in enough of a position of authority in the firm that when the Gabriel Macht character started in the mail room, she spotted his potential, paid for him to go to law school, hired him, and now made him a senior partner. Wouldn't she have to be more like 15-20 years older than him for that to make sense?


Not necessarily.


----------



## speedcouch (Oct 23, 2003)

Definitely had the cinematic look of White Collar, but Harvey's charisma reminded me so much of don draper on Mad Men. Okay with more sense of humor.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

jb007 said:


> Not necessarily.


I suppose it's theoretically possible that she was very young when she graduated law school, was super driven and made partner by age 30. It's also possible that when she was 30 and just made partner, Harvey was 25 and working in the mail room. She encouraged him to go to law school, he graduated at 28, and now he's been an attorney with the firm for 7-8 years.

But the way she talked about plucking him from the mail room, paying for his school, and hiring him at the firm despite him being a bit of a screw up, it's highly unlikely a junior partner would have that kind of pull at a big NYC firm like that. I just didn't buy it. Either they should have cast someone a little older in the Gina Torres role or they should have changed that line to say something like, "...when I stuck my neck out for you with the senior partners and recommended that they pay for you to go to law school and hire you..."


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I suppose it's theoretically possible that she was very young when she graduated law school, was super driven and made partner by age 30. It's also possible that when she was 30 and just made partner, Harvey was 25 and working in the mail room. She encouraged him to go to law school, he graduated at 28, and now he's been an attorney with the firm for 7-8 years.
> 
> But the way she talked about plucking him from the mail room, paying for his school, and hiring him at the firm despite him being a bit of a screw up, it's highly unlikely a junior partner would have that kind of pull at a big NYC firm like that. I just didn't buy it. Either they should have cast someone a little older in the Gina Torres role or they should have changed that line to say something like, "...when I stuck my neck out for you with the senior partners and recommended that they pay for you to go to law school and hire you..."


You are expecting WAY too much from a USA program. USA is more of a "sit back and watch" kind of network. If you nitpick it, the whole series will fall apart. How much of Burn Notice is real? Hardly any. But it's amusing to watch... Just have to ignore reality when doing so.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The whole "paid for him to go to law school" thing was a "huh?" moment for me. Were they supposed to be married at some point in the past or something?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Frylock said:


> You are expecting WAY too much from a USA program. USA is more of a "sit back and watch" kind of network. If you nitpick it, the whole series will fall apart. How much of Burn Notice is real? Hardly any. But it's amusing to watch... Just have to ignore reality when doing so.


I realize that, and I agree for the most part. I was simply pointing out a very minor tweak they could have made that would have made the situation a little more plausible and not provided an opportunity to nitpick.


cheesesteak said:


> The whole "paid for him to go to law school" thing was a "huh?" moment for me. Were they supposed to be married at some point in the past or something?


I took it to mean that the firm paid for him to go to law school, but the firm was doing so at the direction and on the authority of the Gina Torres character, who saw potential in him while he was working in the mail room.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Obviously Gina Torres is playing a character in her late 50s, just like Christine Baranski on "The Good Wife." She just has vastly more spectacular genes. Because she's Gina Torres.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

cheesesteak said:


> The whole "paid for him to go to law school" thing was a "huh?" moment for me. Were they supposed to be married at some point in the past or something?


We really don't know much about Torres' character yet. She could be the daughter of the head of the firm who has now retired -- not unusual.


----------



## Wheens (Jan 1, 2003)

Beryl said:


> We really don't know much about Torres' character yet. She could be the daughter of the head of the firm who has now retired -- not unusual.


This makes sense. Her's is the first name on the firm's name.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Wheens said:


> This makes sense. Her's is the first name on the firm's name.


I hadn't realized that her character's name is Jessica Pearson, and I think the firm is called Pearson Hardman, so she's either related to the founding partner or she is the founding partner. That makes it a little more plausible how she has so much authority so young.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Another issue I had with the casting: Gina Torres is three years older than Gabriel Macht. But the character played by Gina Torres was supposedly in enough of a position of authority in the firm that when the Gabriel Macht character started in the mail room, she spotted his potential, paid for him to go to law school, hired him, and now made him a senior partner. Wouldn't she have to be more like 15-20 years older than him for that to make sense?


This was my big nit to pick, too.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I don't know of any Northeast US Law Firms of substance where the offspring of a partner or founder inherits leadership. However, I'm willing to suspend disbelief because, after 2 episodes, this is still a keeper to me.


----------



## phil75070 (Oct 6, 2004)

I had doubts that subsequent episodes could match the quality and "quirkiness" of the pilot, but episode 2 certainly did not disappoint me like I had expected it to.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

The second episode did manage to maintain the level of ethical murkiness and snappy patter that they had in the pilot. Enjoyed it quite a bit. Not sure how long they can keep it up, though.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I enjoyed it too, and I hope it continues. Let's hope the magical power of creativity remains in force.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

megory said:


> I don't know of any Northeast US Law Firms of substance where the offspring of a partner or founder inherits leadership. However, I'm willing to suspend disbelief because, after 2 episodes, this is still a keeper to me.


Agreed. I like this show quite a bit and I don't watch many television series.

(I suspended belief when HR didn't externally verify his credentials. I spend more time verifying dating material.)


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

This show ended up being much better than I thought. The premise seemed silly based on the commercial, but the writers did a good job of making it believable. The characters are all really good. The relationship between the two leads is of both partners and mentor/mentee. I really started to care about the both of them.

The things I didn't like were with two of the characters. It looks like the best friend is either being written out, or is only a reoccurring character, which is good. I'm also not a huge fan of the actor who plays the nemesis/boss, as he comes off too smarmy.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

holee said:


> This show ended up being much better than I thought. The premise seemed silly based on the commercial, but the writers did a good job of making it believable. The characters are all really good. The relationship between the two leads is of both partners and mentor/mentee. I really started to care about the both of them.
> 
> The things I didn't like were with two of the characters. It looks like the best friend is either being written out, or is only a reoccurring character, which is good. I'm also not a huge fan of the actor who plays the nemesis/boss, as he comes off too smarmy.


He's supposed to be smarmy. Which means he's doing his job well (the actor, not the character).


----------



## holee (Dec 12, 2000)

Agatha Mystery said:


> He's supposed to be smarmy. Which means he's doing his job well (the actor, not the character).


To me, he comes off as over the top smarmy. So obviously evil that you can't see what redeeming traits he could have. I admit that I'm biased against the actor in general. I've seen him in other roles, and in all of them he tends to play an over-the-top villain.

I tend to tolerate the scenes he's in.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Two episodes in and I still feel the three main characters are smug, arrogant and greasy. I'll give it a few more episodes but for right now, I'm thinking lawyers... bleccch.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> You'll like this: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/usa_shows.html
> 
> This was my problem. It's not even that they didn't check with Harvard. It's that he would have to pass the bar (as himself) in order to be employed as a lawyer, and he has to be a graduate of an accredited law school in order to sit for the bar. So basically, the boss is in danger of losing his own license because he's aiding someone in the unauthorized practice of law. Seems like they could have easily gotten around this by simply using the explanation that the rookie is still waiting for the state bar to process his application and he's going to work under the boss until it's approved.
> 
> Actually, it depends what you mean. Most law schools do a very poor job preparing their graduates to actually practice law. Law schools are much more about the theory and teaching students "how to think like a lawyer." But learning how to actually practice law (write motions, perform legal research, communicate with clients and opposing counsel, courtroom procedure) is typically learned on the job, not in law school.


not every state requires you to be a graduate of law school to sit for the bar, though the vast majority do. I'm sure NY probably does though, so it is not realistic, but it IS just tv. A point to consider though - has Mike actually ever been introducted as an associate or attorney? I don't recall him ever having been introduced as such, so possibly they are just portraying him as someone waiting to pass the bar.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Does anybody else find it weird that Harvey has a full fledged vinyl album collection in his office? There have to be 500+ albums in his bookcases. Does he live in his office or something?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Does anybody else find it weird that Harvey has a full fledged vinyl album collection in his office? There have to be 500+ albums in his bookcases. Does he live in his office or something?


I thought that was left over from his stint on Madmen....


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

To the people complaining about the ages of the actors playing the characters, what if you did not know the actor's ages? I didn't, so it did not bother me at all. It also did not bother me that Billy Crystal played Miracle Max, who was a lot older than Crystal.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> not every state requires you to be a graduate of law school to sit for the bar, though the vast majority do. I'm sure NY probably does though, so it is not realistic, but it IS just tv. A point to consider though - has Mike actually ever been introducted as an associate or attorney? I don't recall him ever having been introduced as such, so possibly they are just portraying him as someone waiting to pass the bar.


In the first episode, he went to that university. He like took the place of some kid on a tour I think. What was the point of him being there? I don't remember. Was he there to falsify that he had gone to college?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Hoffer said:


> In the first episode, he went to that university. He like took the place of some kid on a tour I think. What was the point of him being there? I don't remember. Was he there to falsify that he had gone to college?


So when someone asked him about Harvard (like Louis did), he could answer coherently.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Transcripts? He don't need no stinkin' transcripts.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> A point to consider though - has Mike actually ever been introducted as an associate or attorney? I don't recall him ever having been introduced as such, so possibly they are just portraying him as someone waiting to pass the bar.


He may not have been introduced as an attorney but in some situations in which he has participated he seems to have been "holding out" as one.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

eddyj said:


> To the people complaining about the ages of the actors playing the characters, what if you did not know the actor's ages?


I don't care about all of the actor's ages. Just specifically when Zoey talked about watching The Spirit rise up from the mail room then sponsoring him through college. They look to be the same age, so it really jumped out at me when you'd think she should be 10-20 years older than him.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Besides, people do sometimes go back to college later on. I used to work with an engineer who decided to go to law school after having worked as an engineer for several years.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I don't care about all of the actor's ages. Just specifically when Zoey talked about watching The Spirit rise up from the mail room then sponsoring him through college. They look to be the same age, so it really jumped out at me when you'd think she should be 10-20 years older than him.


She just aged better!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Agatha Mystery said:


> Besides, people do sometimes go back to college later on. I used to work with an engineer who decided to go to law school after having worked as an engineer for several years.


You're correct (I went to law school several years after graduating undergrad), but that's not the point. The point is that Gina Torres' character claimed to be in a position of authority at the firm even before the Gabriel Macht character ever went to law school. She plucked him out of the mail room and "paid" for him to go to Harvard. He's now been made senior partner. In a real law firm, the amount of time from starting law school to being made senior partner is minimum 10 years, probably much longer. Gina Torres appears to be approximately 40ish. So assuming it's been 10 years since he worked in the mail room, she would have had to be in a position of authority at the firm by age 30. It's theoretically possible, but just not that realistic.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

So just think to yourself that Gina's character looks really good for the characters real age of 54. She has the money to make it happen and many women do look younger then their bio age.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Two episodes and I'm still digging it. Yeah it's farfetched, but no more than Royal Pains or Burn Notice. I like the interactions between the characters, which are always the highlight of a USA show. The show kind of gives me an LA Law vibe.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I was sorry to see they went the way of Mike and the ex friend's girlfriend. VERY glad they had him walk away...but I figure that's not done yet. 

"Bad lawyer, good lawyer" Yes!


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

betts4 said:


> I was sorry to see they went the way of Mike and the ex friend's girlfriend. VERY glad they had him walk away...but I figure that's not done yet.


Hasn't he walked away each episode so far? Hope this is the last time.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

rahnbo said:


> Hasn't he walked away each episode so far? Hope this is the last time.


Yes, but I don't remember if he had kissed her before. Maybe he has and I have forgotten.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

This is one of those shows that is much better than I expected. I thought it would be another Defenders/Franklin and Bash type show but it is not really like those at all.

It has much more bite.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

This continues to hold my interest. Fast, hard start and it continues to make the mark. Best new show for the season IMO.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Surprisingly acerbic and refreshing. Lots of ethical dilemmas being solved with hard-headed enlightened self-interest rather than the usual lovey-dovey mush-headiness so prevalent on TV.

My goodness, that's a lot of adjectives I threw in there.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

Suits and Falling Skies are excellent new shows. The cast is perfect we have made this a must watch on the night it records. That's as high praise as we give.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I want a "mike" doll! The hair was perfect!


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

Eta: posted in wrong thread


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The show has gotten better as Harvey has become less of a jerk.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> The show has gotten better as Harvey has become less of a jerk.


They showed the non jerk side of him in the pilot and I think that may be why I liked it then.

I keep looking at him and thinking Madmen.

And Gina saying "and I am taller than you." made me laugh.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> The show has gotten better as Harvey has become less of a jerk.


Hey! He's got a reputation to defend!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

betts4 said:


> They showed the non jerk side of him in the pilot and I think that may be why I liked it then.


I thought Harvey was a complete and utter a-hole in the pilot. Actually, I thought everybody was a jerk in the pilot. I decided to stick it out though.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

We are liking this show more and more every week!

Mike needs to let his "friend" crash and burn. That guy is BAD for him.

I liked Harvey more this week. You can see that even though he is an ahole sometimes, he is loyal to his friends. His friendships just seem unconventional.

I like how the client told Mike that just because Harvey admitted that Mike exists, that is gushing for him.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

betts4 said:


> And Gina saying "and I am taller than you." made me laugh.


Me too.

There is really only one true 'jerk' on the show. The rest seem to turn on their jerkiness when they think it will work to their advantage.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

IIRC, we are five shows into the season, and they didn't resort to Mike's super memory this show. I think its good that they are not relying on a gimick.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

I haven't been keeping up, so I guess I need to bow out of this thread before it becomes too spoilery.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I thought this last episode was the best of a pretty good lot so far. I think Harvey really wants to trust Mike, and it's why he cuts him slack while giving him a hard time. Harvey sees a lot of himself in Mike. It's pretty obvious.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> IIRC, we are five shows into the season, and they didn't resort to Mike's super memory this show. I think its good that they are not relying on a gimick.


The super memory is what got me into the show. After the first couple episodes, I was actually upset that the show didn't revolve around it. I thought the show was almost going to be like a super hero show. Now I like the show just because it's a good show and don't even think about the super memory thing anymore.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Well it wasn't a super memory thing that was obvious, but Mike did get the info Harvey needed for the case. And, thank god, there wasn't some stupid thing that Louis did to Mike this week. I was waiting for it when they were in the elevator with the bad guys. I mean, the Harvard song was bad, but not as bad as other stuff he has done. If Mike had been smart, he would have googled them as they were singing.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> not every state requires you to be a graduate of law school to sit for the bar, though the vast majority do. I'm sure NY probably does though, so it is not realistic, but it IS just tv. A point to consider though - has Mike actually ever been introducted as an associate or attorney? I don't recall him ever having been introduced as such, so possibly they are just portraying him as someone waiting to pass the bar.


If I recall correctly, unless there have been some recent changes, the only states that allowed apprenticeship in recent times as a path towards becoming a member of the bar were Alabama and... New York.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

*Episode - Tricks of the Trade OAD 7/28/2011*

So now Rachael knows. Interesting. She seems so ethical or maybe moral about it when she found out but yet, she was going to use his services. I didn't expect her to after the looks she gave her friend. I did give Mike some kudos for how he handled it when talking to her in the park.

I loved the boss giving tickets to Louis then be pushed to go to the show and dinner with him. Then, getting back by giving Harvey the baseball tickets and saying that he has to go with Louis.

I want to go back and rewatch the other episodes to see if there are any more Top Gun quotes or if that was made up just for this ep.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

betts4 said:


> *Episode - Tricks of the Trade OAD 7/28/2011*
> 
> So now Rachael knows. Interesting.


She only knows he was taking exams for other people. But she still doesn't know that he never graduated from Harvard and isn't a real lawyer.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> She only knows he was taking exams for other people. But she still doesn't know that he never graduated from Harvard and isn't a real lawyer.


I just found her reaction very high and mighty for one that was looking to use his services.

And Harvey making the comment about Mike taking the girl's test in drag was amusing. Especially Mike's response!


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

The whole tone of the show was different, I thought. A lot more joking around, less angst. Some of the jokes seemed out of place for the characters, but I do like this show a bit lighter than serious.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I like the Mike in this episode a lot more than in the previous episode. Last episode he was just a moron. For example, he did not turn of the ringer on his phone in the big meeting, got chastised for it, and then made the same mistake AGAIN in court. But this episode his main flaw was that he tended to get tongue-tied in confrontational conversations. That seemed a lot more believable to me.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

betts4 said:


> I just found her reaction very high and mighty for one that was looking to use his services.


I think her emotional reaction was more due to the fact that Mike deceived her. She initially thought he was being nice and supportive by helping her, and then after she found deduced that he was the test taker, she figured he was not being nice to her at all, but rather just selfishly trying to cover his ass and not get caught for cheating on the LSATs. Of course, the truth is that he was kind of doing both (with perhaps more weight given to helping her), but he could not find the words to explain that to her.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Peter000 said:


> She only knows he was taking exams for other people. But she still doesn't know that he never graduated from Harvard and isn't a real lawyer.


I was a little unclear on what she knows about that. I assume the LSAT test in question was taken in NY, at a time when Mike was supposedly at Harvard Law, so that is a bit suspicious.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

john4200 said:


> I think her emotional reaction was more due to the fact that Mike deceived her. She initially thought he was being nice and supportive by helping her, and then after she found deduced that he was the test taker, she figured he was not being nice to her at all, but rather just selfishly trying to cover his ass and not get caught for cheating on the LSATs. Of course, the truth is that he was kind of doing both (with perhaps more weight given to helping her), but he could not find the words to explain that to her.


To me, she had the same reaction when her friend told her that she had cheated as she did to Mike. "what? you did that? how could you that, it is just not ethical!" was the impression I got. For both times she learned - her friend and Mike.

And yes, he was trying to cover his ass, but it didn't start that way. Originally he wanted to help her pass the tests by her taking them and not over thinking everything like she had been. He was trying to be nice and help her. I don't get why she would think he was trying to cover his ass by helping her....he wasn't taking the tests for people anymore.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Sure, that is what she said. But that is not why she was upset with Mike, as I already explained.

As for protecting himself, that is obvious! He would probably be fired immediately if anyone else at the firm found out that he used to help people cheat on the LSATs. And even if he were not fired for that, he does not want people looking into his past, since he has some rather glaring problems in that area.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

Peter000 said:


> She only knows he was taking exams for other people. But she still doesn't know that he never graduated from Harvard and isn't a real lawyer.


I wonder though what is a real lawyer???

He passed the bar exam so he can legally practice law so he is a real lawyer...

He just did not get his knowledge from a law degree...


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Now I'm confused. I know Mike didn't graduate from Harvard with a law degree, so they could still kick him out of the firm for lying on his resume. But if he passed the bar exam, isn't he still a legitimate lawyer?


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

He took the LSAT for people but did he take and pass the bar exam as well? If so I clearly missed that.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I don't think he has taken it for himself AS himself. 

He took it for the girl and she took it for him (so he didn't have to get dressed in drag.)


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Einselen said:


> He took the LSAT for people but did he take and pass the bar exam as well? If so I clearly missed that.


I don't think so. If that happened, I missed it too.

And I'm not so sure that passing the bar while cheating for another person would be looked on so kindly by the ethical board and I don't think it would count.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Einselen said:


> He took the LSAT for people but did he take and pass the bar exam as well? If so I clearly missed that.


IIRC, in the Pilot episode he stated he's passed the bar so many times he deserves to be a lawyer, or something to that effect.

I think they just forgot about that, and now have him able to pass the LSAT with whatever grade he wants.

phox


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

phox_mulder said:


> IIRC, in the Pilot episode he stated he's passed the bar so many times he deserves to be a lawyer, or something to that effect.
> 
> I think they just forgot about that, and now have him able to pass the LSAT with whatever grade he wants.


But he was taking it for other people and he needed to be able to get them a score that would match their grade point average.


----------



## MNoelH (Mar 17, 2005)

LSAT and the bar are two different things. LSAT is an acceptance test to get you into law school after you've completed your undergraduate work.

I don't remember them discussing him passing the bar at all (but it may have happened). I also have no idea if he has an undergraduate degree of any kind.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

MNoelH said:


> LSAT and the bar are two different things. LSAT is an acceptance test to get you into law school after you've completed your undergraduate work.
> 
> I don't remember them discussing him passing the bar at all (but it may have happened). I also have no idea if he has an undergraduate degree of any kind.


Not to mention bar exams vary from state to state and LSAT is more standardized (correct?)


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

I just re-watched the first episode. Well, at least the section where Mike is explaining to Harvey how he's so smart. Mike says early on in the conversation that he passed the bar and later in the conversation says he took the bar because a friend bet him he couldn't pass it without going through law school first.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I remember Mike saying he passed the bar on a bet. What I do not remember is if he said whether he passed in his own name, and what state's bar exam he took. If they did not say, I guess it was a false name and probably NY state bar since it seems he has been living in NY for a while now.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

I didn't remember the details, but the time Mike actually appeared in court suggested to me that he was a "real" lawyer as far as NY state was concerned. Bucking the firm's rule about Harvard grads is one thing, sending a non-lawyer into court would be another.

The firm could fire him for lying on his application, but since the guy who hired him knew the the truth the "firm" knows the truth. If he's valuable enough before they find out then the fact he didn't graduate from Harvard might not be an issue at all.

The riskier secret is taking tests for others. You might be able to get away with that at Crane, Poole and Schmidt, but this firm wouldn't like the ethical black eye.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Suits has an awful lot of cussing for a USA show. Is this the only USA show where words like a-hole and p*ssy are frequently used?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I don't consider that cussing.


----------



## nyny523 (Oct 31, 2003)

They say sh*t a lot, too.

And Mike did pass the bar.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Boss-lady really favors Mike and Harvey.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Although, she wasn't happy with Mike and his performance in the mock trial.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

I have enjoyed this show from the get-go and it never disappointed me for entertainment! It's Number One for me. I'm disappointed the season was so short and can't wait for another "season" ASAP please.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

megory said:


> I have enjoyed this show from the get-go and it never disappointed me for entertainment! It's Number One for me. I'm disappointed the season was so short and can't wait for another "season" ASAP please.


We still have another four episodes in this season.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

HAH! I must be confusing end-of-season with a different show. YIPPEE!


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

megory said:


> HAH! I must be confusing end-of-season with a different show. YIPPEE!


Franklin & Bash, maybe?


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

I think White Collar and In Plain Sight are done for the season.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

justen_m said:


> I think White Collar and In Plain Sight are done for the season.


The White Collar finale is tomorrow night.

In Plain Sight finished last night.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

ClutchBrake said:


> The White Collar finale is tomorrow night.
> In Plain Sight finished last night.


My mistake. I thought some other USA show had finished for the summer already. Maybe I've just been confused about all the promos about the upcoming summer finales. I time shift everything, so promos can be a bit confusing, because they seldom mention the date, just the day and time. I should put that in the Things That Annoy Me thread.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

justen_m said:


> My mistake. I thought some other USA show had finished for the summer already. Maybe I've just been confused about all the promos about the upcoming summer finales. I time shift everything, so promos can be a bit confusing, because they seldom mention the date, just the day and time. I should put that in the Things That Annoy Me thread.


White Collar was really confusing. My wife and I would both swear the episode before last advertised last week's episode as the finale. If that wasn't it the wording must have been really ambiguous.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

The guide data has been screwed up, I think, like a week ahead. It seems to be fixed now though.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

ClutchBrake said:


> White Collar was really confusing. My wife and I would both swear the episode before last advertised last week's episode as the finale. If that wasn't it the wording must have been really ambiguous.


The week before last, the promos were saying something like "only one more episode before the season finale!".


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Suits renewed for 16 episode 2nd season.


----------



## megory (Jan 23, 2003)

ClutchBrake said:


> Franklin & Bash, maybe?


 Could be. I kept hearing something was on its last episode. I don't care about F&B (neutral) and I remember feeling disappointed.

Now, seeing Suits is renewed, I'm happy. And, in my dreams it would be a whole year contract--as long as NCIS:up::up:


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

In Cable time, 16 new episodes is a whole year.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Can someone tell me what happened in the last fifteen minutes of the Mock Trial episode? 
I got up to - Mike going off on Rachel then realizing she was taking it personal and stepping down and he lost the case. I don't know what happened after that with them or the mock trial. Or what happened after Harvey showed the other lawyer lady that his client was going to sell their crown jewels. 
Thanks


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

betts4 said:


> Can someone tell me what happened in the last fifteen minutes of the Mock Trial episode?


This thread is not marked "spoilers". Maybe your question would be better asked in the thread for that episode:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=473864


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

AeneaGames said:


> I wonder though what is a real lawyer???
> 
> He passed the bar exam so he can legally practice law so he is a real lawyer...
> 
> He just did not get his knowledge from a law degree...


In most states, including New York, the prerequisite for taking the bar exam is a Juris Doctor degree from an accredited U.S. law school. The fact that he did not attend, let alone graduate, from such a school but officially stated that he did is a fradulent act. Result: Disbarment, termination from job, possible criminal indictment. It doesn't matter that he actually passed the exam, or if he is the sharpest legal mind the world has ever known or not, for that matter.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Graymalkin said:


> Now I'm confused. I know Mike didn't graduate from Harvard with a law degree, so they could still kick him out of the firm for lying on his resume. But if he passed the bar exam, isn't he still a legitimate lawyer?


No. See post above.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

This isn't worth starting a new, 2012 Suits thread but I wanted to say that Harvey's secretary Donna (Sarah Rafferty) is smoking hot.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> This isn't worth starting a new, 2012 Suits thread but I wanted to say that Harvey's secretary Donna (Sarah Rafferty) is smoking hot.


This seems to be the year of hot redheads on TV. Last year seemed to be the year of hot Indians.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Glad to see it back and this season's story arc looks promising. However, are we getting to the point where *everyone* knows Mike is a fake?


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

Now it will be keeping the secret from the other partner dude. And you know that Luis Litt is going to be on the side of the partner dude. He always suspects something isn't quite right about Mike.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Careful, getting close to spoilers in a non-spoiler thread.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Ugh. Can the OP put "spoilers" in the title? please?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Or, if someone wants to post a spoiler, they could just start an episode or season thread.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I remember liking Franklin and Bash but when it finally came back, I forgot all the characters and situations. As a result, I stopped caring about season 2.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> This isn't worth starting a new, 2012 Suits thread but I wanted to say that Harvey's secretary Donna (Sarah Rafferty) is smoking hot.


QFT


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Actually, all of the women at the firm wear very tightly fitted clothing.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

betts4 said:


> So just think to yourself that Gina's character looks really good for the characters real age of 54. She has the money to make it happen and many women do look younger then their bio age.


Well, I guess they took care of that in the S2 premiere.


----------



## bnbhoha (Nov 2, 2002)

I just came across this show. I needed a summer time filler and this show really does keep your interest. I'm starting season 3 now. A few times I've watched three episodes in row! I didn't even know Suits existed and nobody I know talks about it. Hope it continues to be great.


----------

