|
NOTE: This thread contains spoilers. Do not read the thread if you are not caught up.
If a new episode has already officially aired, you are allowed to discuss what happened without posting in spoilers. |
On March 06 2016 19:12 chrisolo wrote: I am quiet sure that pleading guilty was part of the deal and when he signed that deal, he practically said he was guilty in front of court. Part of the deal he made was that Gibbs wouldn't go after anybody else. You could argue not going after whatever his name is for perjury should or would be included.
|
On March 07 2016 07:57 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 18:53 evilfatsh1t wrote: the problem i think adreme is talking about is probably what ive been feeling a lot too. you cant leave mike in jail for the whole of the next season, yet the show is going to have a hard time justifying any decision to bring him out of jail early. a time skip at least gives us all the lawyer stuff back without having to watch mike in jail. now that the producers have confirmed the season will continue from exactly where they left off, theres not much they can show us unless they want to pull some really weird storyline out of their ass that will probably make everything that happened in season 6 pointless.
edit: totally forgot about jimmy. even more of a dick move on mikes part now. not sure whether accepting a jail sentence in an out of court settlement can be seen as admission of guilt, but jimmy committing perjury cant just be ignored. Suits has been known to spend (almost) entire episodes on flashbacks from years ago. I could see the season starting when Mike comes out of jail, but being mostly flashbacks from his life in it, in relation to what he's going to do now.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the next season starts after prison ends and they just use flashbacks for the missed two years, but I'm not sure I'd be satisfied with that. I'd like to see Mike actually suffer a bit and atone for his sins.
|
On March 07 2016 08:27 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 19:12 chrisolo wrote: I am quiet sure that pleading guilty was part of the deal and when he signed that deal, he practically said he was guilty in front of court. Part of the deal he made was that Gibbs wouldn't go after anybody else. You could argue not going after whatever his name is for perjury should or would be included.
The final nuances of who can't be pursued- anyone at the firm vs just the name partners vs anyone at all including friends not at the firm- was privately clarified and so we don't know for sure if Donna/ Rachel or Jimmy/ Scottie or anyone else could be charged during the next season.
I'm sure that his secret being out/ him pleading guilty won't fix much of anything though. Lawsuits are incoming, and there'll surely be more fraud drama. And Rachel drama since, well, it's Rachel.
|
inb4 logan sanders comes back and starts hitting on rachel again
|
On March 07 2016 09:28 evilfatsh1t wrote: inb4 logan sanders comes back and starts hitting on rachel again
That actor keeps bouncing between Scorpion and Suits, and he plays a jackass in both shows.
He's perfect for Rachel.
|
IT HAD to end like this otherwise it'd be even more stupid ending if he was found not guilty and all behaved like nothing happened.
PSL is donezo, seems like everyone left, lol. Wondering what will happen to Harvey / Jessica / Louis in next season, ehh. I hope they don't build next season around Mike sitting in prison, cause that would be dumb.
|
|
And then the Donna/ Rachel porn spinoff called Birthday Suits.
|
On March 10 2016 17:12 739 wrote: IT HAD to end like this otherwise it'd be even more stupid ending if he was found not guilty and all behaved like nothing happened.
PSL is donezo, seems like everyone left, lol. Wondering what will happen to Harvey / Jessica / Louis in next season, ehh. I hope they don't build next season around Mike sitting in prison, cause that would be dumb. it wouldnt be like nothing happened though. mike getting off might let him practice law as he pleases but pls is a dead firm now. the show could have continued with jessica, harvey, mike, louis etc trying to revive the firm and that would have been fun to watch. now the show is probably going to split the plot into pls reviving the firm + mike getting rekt in prison
|
On March 10 2016 17:13 icystorage wrote: It'll be "Jumpsuits" HEYO
|
I really don't see the prison thing happening, at least not for an extended period of time. This is not what Suits is about. Other shows do prison stuff well, but Suits' audience is not here to watch that. A lot of Suits' established ecosystem wouldn't fit in the prison setting. No more product placement for high-quality formal clothes or interior design, their law consultants become less useful if all we see is Mike trying not to drop the soap for half an episode, and Patrick J Adams is afaik unproven in a prison setting (he certainly hasn't been cast for this). I could maybe see Mike helping other inmates with law matters, but they're probably a bit limited . They would really be shooting themselves in the foot by starting from scratch, and I think they're not about to throw away a successful formula just to take a chance at a prison show (which, just looking at this thread, few people want).
But maybe the show is trying to distance itself from Mike, one of its 2 main characters, and will keep the prison stuff to a minimum. That's a whole other discussion then, more about Mike's fading importance.
|
There's no way the show will continue in prison. The showrunner might have said they won't do a timeskip for the next seasons first episode. But he never stated they wouldn't do this in the second or third episode.
My guess is that they'll show the first and maybe second episode his prisontime for a period and then do a timeskip. They might touch on the subject of building PSL up again the next season, but by the end of the season PSL will be the powerhouse they once were, for sure.
|
Well so what will happen to Mike once he gets out of prison? He can't practice law anyway so... ?
|
On March 11 2016 22:19 739 wrote: Well so what will happen to Mike once he gets out of prison? He can't practice law anyway so... ? He could get a degree inside prison. Though i don't think that's doable in 2 years sentence...
|
Actually what's fucking stupid is the jury. So everyone knows he didn't go to law school, which is what the whole case is about. Oh, but let's find him innocent on a technicality!
This is why people think Americans are retarded.
User was warned for this post
|
I don't think that's really the case here... The whole problem is that a jury has an opinion about the case. On this matter; one guys opinion is very strong. He thinks that even though Mike didn't go to school, he functions as a real lawyer. He's so good at his job, that in this guys mind; he deserves to be aquited. He then goes above and beyond to get the rest of the jury behind him. And in the end he succeeds.
I think that's the whole problem with this story. I don't know if this could happen in real life. But once you get the sympathy of a jury, you can do anything.
|
|
On March 11 2016 23:47 714 wrote: Actually what's fucking stupid is the jury. So everyone knows he didn't go to law school, which is what the whole case is about. Oh, but let's find him innocent on a technicality!
This is why people think Americans are retarded.
User was warned for this post No, the point was that you're innocent until PROVEN guilty. And the jury Harvey went to see said Anita Gibbs didn't have enough of a case, and you can't condemn a guy just because you somehow are convinced he did it.
|
On March 12 2016 07:59 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2016 23:47 714 wrote: Actually what's fucking stupid is the jury. So everyone knows he didn't go to law school, which is what the whole case is about. Oh, but let's find him innocent on a technicality!
This is why people think Americans are retarded.
User was warned for this post No, the point was that you're innocent until PROVEN guilty. And the jury Harvey went to see said Anita Gibbs didn't have enough of a case, and you can't condemn a guy just because you somehow are convinced he did it.
Agreed. The juror literally said to Harvey that Gibbs didn't make a convincing enough argument.
|
I thought the Juror said that he was the only one who thought Mike was guilty and he was trying to convince the rest of the jury of this, since everyone else thought he was innocent.
I have seen 12 Angry Men.
|
|
|
|