Justice - ongoing thread (1 Viewer)

[Brian^K]

Yup, like they didn't give 24 a chance.

:rolleyes

 

[chuck_b]

Although I have watched both episodes, I am not as much a fan as many here seem. The production itself is first rate, but the weak story lines, bad acting by some and unrealistic portrayal of the legal world make me cringe. I do like Garber however and the high end sets and camera work, but I become jaded when I see someone walk off the street into a high end firm and have the firms partners all show up having nothing to do, to meet a walk in client. That's just for starters. I am sure the Tom character will give law students false hope that someone who looks like they just left high school is holding court at the biggest trials in the country.

For sheer guilty fun the show is watchable, but I wonder when the plot holes and never guilty clients become boring and cannot be made up with flashy sets and high tech toys.

 

[Patrick Sun]

9/13/06

I'm starting to like the backbone that Tom displays when shooting down Ron's ideas. This show is so slick, maybe too slick, but the hour goes by pretty fast, and the "reveal" made you go "Hmmm...."

 

[Scott-S]

I stopped watching. The jerky camera, and terrible compression on Dish network made it unwatchable. Whenever they used the handy cam, the picture was really pixelated. If I want that, I'll watch on the internet. Same picture quality. :frowning:

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

"Never guilty clients"? When you wrote that a grand total of two episodes had aired. A bit early to call "never", don't you think? The fact is that most clients on most shows about defense lawyers are innocent* because the audience prefers to see the heroes on any show win, and they don't like it when a "win" for the heroes means putting a criminal back on the streets. But I'm sure Justice will have its share of guilty clients and lost cases, because the format pretty much demands that the finale contain a surprise at least once in awhile. They've now done three episodes and I'll be surprised if episode 4 or 5 doesn't feature a guilty client.

Regards,

Joe

* Unless the show is Boston Legal and the defendent works for the firm. Then he or she can be guilty as sin, but still get off.

 

[pitchman]

I do not have Dish, but noticed the same thing on cable this week -- Really pixelated and lots of digital artifacting. Perhaps there was too much compression in the network feed? Whatever it was, it was not there in the earlier episodes I saw.

 

[Jason Walstrom]

I noticed the intense Pixelization as well. I started making up scenarios in my head like they accidently deleted the show and had to air somekind of lowbit back up from their network mainframe. Hehe

 

[Brian^K]

I'm losing interest as well. The show just isn't good enough, given how many other good shows there are this year.

 

[Citizen87645]

I don't think I'll last much longer either. I've consistently found the first 15 minutes highly annoying in that over-the-top, Bruckheimer way - everything from the title song to the "American Justice" anchor. And I laugh every time someone says the name of the law firm. Maybe that's the whole point; either way, it's really not appealing to me anymore.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm enjoying this show very much, however if it's cancelled I would understand why, it's not a law show for everyone.

One thing, though, are all of their clients going to be innocent? Just once i'd like to see someone get one over on the firm and lie about his/her innocence, which would be revealed at the very end when they show what really happened.

 

[Wendy_L]

I don’t think every client will be innocent. I’m sure quite a few of them will really be guilty. Since we have only seen 3 episodes so far I’m sure a few more will be innocent until we see someone who was really guilty. But, already we have seen some discrepancies in their client's stories. Like the chick from the 2nd episode, she never said anything about taking off with the money after she stabbed him. And in the 3rd episode we got to see the real killer.

 

[Nick Martin]

I will keep watching.

I don't normally watch shows of this intensity, and being an ANGEL nut, I'm happy to see a show about evil lawyers again.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

"Evil lawyers"? Isn't that redundant?

(I kid out of love. I used to work for a law firm. Everything you've ever thought about lawyers is true. )

Regards,

Joe

 

[Patrick Sun]

Spoilers below:


This would have been the episode to have the Nikki Reed character be guilty of the crime, it was set up for her to have done it, especially based on her reaction to the verdict. Oh well.

I did like the addition of Erin Daniels (formerly of "The L Word") in the supporting cast. She brought some good sarcasm and grit to the, otherwise, flashy show.

 

[Joe_H]

Yeah, I really thought this time the person was guilty. Part of me wonders if it actually will be always innocent clients, because of the theme song, which mentions something about an "innocent bystander"

 

[pitchman]

I think I am checking out after watching last night's show. This is easily the weakest episode of the series so far, IMO. It was nice to see Michael Badalucco (of The Practice), but the writers literally gave him nothing to do. I know Perry Mason never lost a case and millions of viewers continued to tune in every week anyway, but I don't think this show is strong enough to go down that same path.

On a positive note, I didn't notice any horrible compression artifacts this time around...

 

[Walter C]

I was just about to ask if Perry Mason won all his cases.

I don't remember the show except for the theme music.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

If memory serves Perry Mason (in the original series, at any rate) lost precisely one case. I forget the details, but I'm pretty sure the producers just decide to shut up the critics who complained that he never lost.

But the heroes winning all or nearly all of their cases has also been the cast in most lawyer shows - especially those about defense lawyers - for most of the history of television. Did The Defenders ever lose? Owen Marshall? The prosecutors in L&O sometimes lose, in part because that matches the public perception the slick lawyers and legal technicalities can let the guilty go free. (Although L&O also uses a "loss" to set up a return appearance by particularly good bad guy and an eventual conviction.)

As noted above, audiences, by and large, prefer the good guys to win and for justice to be done. While the odd exception may be welcome, nobody wants a steady diet of a show where the heoroes constantly lose or justice is frustrated over and over again. This means that in shows about prosecutors the defendents are going to be guilty and get convicted at least 90% of the time, and in shows about defense attorneys the clients are going to be innocent and get acquitted about 99% of the time. Why does this surprse anyone?

Regards,

Joe

 

[chuck_b]

The difference with other previous legal shows that always won cases such as the above examples was the defendent and the firm. The firms or DA's portrayed were always principled and fighting against a larger, more affluent opponent. The clients were also usually shown innocent in the opening and were portayed as not guilty from the start. This show shows the opposite - a below the belt, well-financed, not clearly "good guys" speciality firm with celebrity-involved clients who are made to seem possibly guilty from the start. When a show seems to say being found not guilty is coorelated to the money spent of defense, it will inevitably force viewers to wish for a different outcome.

 

[Scott_J]

Things aren't looking good for Justice. FOX has changed next week's episode, then replaced it the following week with a repeat of House from last season. I think the end may be near. (Last night's episode drew just a 1.9 rating, down 27% from the previous week - lower than even the season premiere of Next Top Model on CW)