Finally watching Boston Legal, i have two questions
Why was the show not more popular? The network seemed to keep moving it, so why didn’t the network support it more? It had Shatner so the trekkies should have watched it just to oogle. And everybody loves legal dramas.
Why is the show so absurdly unrealistic as far as how the legal system works? I can understand why the creator (who has a JD) would, for dramatic purposes, not cover appeals, and have the judges make decisions based on common sense and not precedent, and have the law firm handle every case possible instead of concentrating on an area of the law (which a midlaw firm would handle). But even things like the cases making no legal sense at all: a jury awarding a girl left at the altar 1.6 million dollars (yeah right). It’s just absurd. Also even better evidence, the lawyers date their clients romantically, which is utterly unethical.
I dont want to nitpick this on legal grounds, but it’s just so obvious that doctors and lawyers can’t date their clients for ethics reasons, why make this the center of several episodes? And the behavior of the attorneys is so utterly unprofessional that even with dramatic license, that kind of harassment is just absurd.
It had a life. It was quite popular and worth watching. It get’s more and more ridiculous and by the end it’s ok to let it go and understand why it ended.
I think the show took so much liberty with the law because real law is boring. In real law you don’t get to be a mouthpiece for David E. Kelly’s fiercely liberal views. The real law insists on evidence and all that boring stuff instead of a passionate speech about how even though this client clearly broke the law, this is America and we can let it go once in a while. Seriously, how many times did Denny bring guns into the courtroom? And how many times can a real lawyer do that before being disbarred?
As for the network troubles, the network hated Boston Legal. It was expensive, it wasn’t theirs (produced by Fox if you can believe it) and it featured a “mature” cast that wasn’t as glamorous or sexy as the cast of Grey’s Anatomy. It was bad enough that they joked about it on the show.
Speaking of Grey’s, here’s something perverse: Patrick Dempsey was kind of nobody when he guest starred on The Practice, in a three part episode where Alan defended him for murder. Dempsey was playing a dentist, so we got to see him in the typical doctor outfit. The episodes were amazing and probably raised his Hollywood stature quite a bit. So what happens next? Dempsey lands the role of Dr. McDreamy (or whatever it was, I don’t follow that show) on Grey’s Anatomy. And Grey’s Anatomy becomes so popular that Boston Legal is dumped right off the schedule. That’s why season 1 just fizzles after 17 episodes and why season 2 has such a strange first five episodes.
I’m watching this show now too, and I like it. My biggest complaint is how they deal with characters/actors leaving the show. They just kinda… disappear. Lori and the two young lawyers werent addressed at all, and Tara just sorta quit when her and Alan broke up.
David E. Kelly shows start off surprisingly good. Then it seems like after half a season Kelly gets bored and starts writing conventional melodrama to keep the pay checks coming.
If you ever get a chance, watch the first season (just six episodes) of “the practice.” The law firm is struggling with money problems, isn’t well respected in the legal world, and is forced to take cases they don’t like to keep the lights on.
Their money problems and respect issues go away at the start of season two. That season is decent melodrama, but nowhere near as compelling and realistic as season one.
The character Alan Shore was introduced during the final season of “the practice.” He was more interesting then than during the entire run of Boston Legal.
Why is it so unrealistic? I think it’s because Kelly decided to make it a running joke. In one episode Alan tells Denny that the Supreme Court decided to hear their case. Denny asks when the case will start and Alan tells him that it starts next week.
This is what disturbs me the most about the show; I understand the concept of comedy and absurdity, but such things must be done in proper context for them to work. A bunch of monkeys throwing bananas at each other for 42minutes straight would amuse some children and idiots, but would turn off people with mature minds.
My argument is that the writer has the characters so exceed the bounds of rational behavior, that we do not appreciate it, rather it becomes a more “What would they do that? That doesn’t make sense.” Instead of laughing or appreciating irony, the show veers into childishness. Adult people do not behave that way: lawyers do not sexually harass their clients (as they did to Heather Locklear), if not just for ethics, but for keeping the fees coming in.
In other words, I understand it is not to be taken at face value, but it is one thing to have characters in an absurd situation. It is another thing entirely when most things appear nonsensical and absurd. I wish I could explain how I feel about it better, but it is as if Kelley waivers between “it’s so intelligent I can’t believe it’s on TV” and “This is absurd and makes no sense, how is that funny?”, between the adult and child mentality.
As for why I watched a few episodes, despite these criticisms, everything is relative. Compared to other shows it is still good.
The show is only tangentially about the law. You’re just going to have to roll with it or stop watching. It gets more absurd as it goes along. Almost nothing happens as it would in real life, but it really isn’t a plot driven show.
I enjoyed the show and eventually watched every episode on DVD but this came close to ruining it for me. Every time I started to enjoy or care about a character at all they wrote them off unceremoniously. By the end there’s a stream of characters who fit a particular template and within that template are completely indistinguishable between one another.
For example, I like both John Larroquette and Rene Auberjonois but I don`t think their characters are even a tiny bit distinguishable from one another. It could have been 1 character in the series the entire time instead of Rene Auberjonois mostly disappearing to make room for John Larroquette. And those are two well known actors. There was a stream of attractive young male and attractive young female lawyers and I literally couldn’t name them or distinguish them in any way. Most of them I was beginning to like when they wrote them off, but now in retrospect I can’t even distinguish between them or name a single one.
The only characters besides the leads that they kept around for long were that stupid cross dresser and the loser with Tourette syndrome or Asperger’s or whatever. And I wish they were written off.
By the way, I tried to pay attention to this carefully but I’m willing to consider that I missed it. Can anyone think of a single episode where they lost a case? “they” may be too vague. Did James Spader’s character ever lose a case, even one time?
It was dramatically relevant - they were going to do an appeal, or in a twist it turned out the client was guilty, or any other plot convenient reason…
If they were covering some issue that was topical - it wouldn’t make sense to make legal precedent overturning previous law (of note in current media) on a TV show, so they would need to find some excuse not to overturn it.
That said, I admit I can’t think of an actual example. But I can’t think of counter examples either. The show was cancelled fairly long ago. I do remember the two Supreme Court cases being left in limbo.
