Another banger episode, with a hell of a "no f-ing way" ending.
*** PRESUMED INNOCENT *** (Jake Gyllenhaal Apple TV+ Series)
26,493 Views |
278 Replies |
Last: 9 days ago by TCTTS
I wish I could remember the book but it's been like 35 years.
Show is so well madeTCTTS said:
Another banger episode, with a hell of a "no f-ing way" ending.
I still enjoyed it, but the 2 big twists on episode 3 felt rather cheap to me.
Does Hollywood think that everyone is dropping the f bomb every other word at work?
who is she on the show- I don't recognize her.
see my earlier post about how the actual dialogue is not ringing trueRudyjax said:
Does Hollywood think that everyone is dropping the f bomb every other word at work?
for how REAL people actually speak to each other in a District Attorney's office.
1. there is more professionalism 2. they would get sued for all the violent eruptions of Gyllenhaals character
I've never understood the idea that scripted/fictional dramas are somehow supposed to mirror every detail of real life. When they've always instead depicted varying levels of heightened realities, in which Aaron Sorkin perfectly describes the dialogue as what people would say if they had an extra ten seconds to think about every line that came out of their mouths.
Not to mention scene length constraints… the amount of exposition that has to be eloquently doled out… the emotional check points that have to be hit, etc… it all adds up to an attempt to find the most economical way to tell a story, which often results in, say, things like arguments taking place in locations and in front of people they probably would take place in front of in real life. Also, in this particular case, the arguments, the language… those things help maximize the drama, and I personally can't imagine this show being as good with any of that stuff dialed down.
Think of it this way… documentaries are photographs, while scripted movies/TV are paintings. The entire aim of the former is accuracy, fidelity, etc, while the aim of the latter is more impressionistic, where reality is often bent to help arrive at a greater thematic truth. In other words, if you're looking for hyper-accuracy, go watch a true crime documentary. Or, better yet, go to your local courthouse and sit in on a real-life trial. Otherwise, IMO, this is some of the best writing/storytelling I've seen in a while, and I could not be more impressed with how emotional, economical, and well-structured it all is. It's damn near a masterclass so far, if I'm being completely honest.
Not to mention scene length constraints… the amount of exposition that has to be eloquently doled out… the emotional check points that have to be hit, etc… it all adds up to an attempt to find the most economical way to tell a story, which often results in, say, things like arguments taking place in locations and in front of people they probably would take place in front of in real life. Also, in this particular case, the arguments, the language… those things help maximize the drama, and I personally can't imagine this show being as good with any of that stuff dialed down.
Think of it this way… documentaries are photographs, while scripted movies/TV are paintings. The entire aim of the former is accuracy, fidelity, etc, while the aim of the latter is more impressionistic, where reality is often bent to help arrive at a greater thematic truth. In other words, if you're looking for hyper-accuracy, go watch a true crime documentary. Or, better yet, go to your local courthouse and sit in on a real-life trial. Otherwise, IMO, this is some of the best writing/storytelling I've seen in a while, and I could not be more impressed with how emotional, economical, and well-structured it all is. It's damn near a masterclass so far, if I'm being completely honest.
I think they are nailing it, honestly. Reminds me of so many lawyers I've worked with and against.Rudyjax said:
Does Hollywood think that everyone is dropping the f bomb every other word at work?
Really. I didn't know lawyers at work used the f bomb every other word.Teddy Perkins said:I think they are nailing it, honestly. Reminds me of so many lawyers I've worked with and against.Rudyjax said:
Does Hollywood think that everyone is dropping the f bomb every other word at work?
It doesn't bother me,but it just seems to me that they are like, well, we're on apple so we can use it.
TCTTS, do you use the f bomb all day long in your offices ?
I work in an even more white collar environment than this, and Fbombs are frequent all day.Quote:
Does Hollywood think that everyone is dropping the f bomb every other word at work?
I work white collar and absolutely no fbombs.20ag07 said:I work in an even more white collar environment than this, and Fbombs are frequent all day.Quote:
Does Hollywood think that everyone is dropping the f bomb every other word at work?
Yes, all the ****ing time. The discovery conference was also accurate - lots of decisions in a case and trial are driven by spite for the opposing counsel. It's a lot of fun. That said, most all lawyers know how to turn it off in front of the judge and jury or in other professional settings.Rudyjax said:Really. I didn't know lawyers at work used the f bomb every other word.Teddy Perkins said:I think they are nailing it, honestly. Reminds me of so many lawyers I've worked with and against.Rudyjax said:
Does Hollywood think that everyone is dropping the f bomb every other word at work?
It doesn't bother me,but it just seems to me that they are like, well, we're on apple so we can use it.
TCTTS, do you use the f bomb all day long in your offices ?
You can bet they are said out loud many times daily in every DA office across the country. No, I'm not saying that everyone drops them in front of their boss in a conference room, depending on the audience and that boss's personality.Quote:
I work white collar and absolutely no fbombs.
But fbomb dropping in a work environment is a lot more common than you seem to think.
30+ years in corporate work and I'v heard it very infrequently except for my boss from Boston early in my career.
It gets said from time to time. Though you gotta know your audience and make sure it's safe to do so.
I'm an HR manager btw.
I'm an HR manager btw.
Read the book ages ago. Excellent. I remember something about, The Marbled Peach…
I have zero self control. Watching the movie tonight so I can look at these side-by-side.
I regret nothing.
It's actually pretty fascinating. Seeing what's done in 90 seconds on film in 1990 that then turns into 9+ minutes on TV in 2024 is interesting.
There is no planet on which this would have been adapted into a movie today. However, in 1990, it did $200M (which is like a $500M+ blockbuster today).
There are certain beat-for-beat scene repeats, that are almost comical when watching the show, and the type of exposition required /allowed in 2024 clearly absent in a 1990 film adaptation. I don't think I was plot spoiled.
Having both a 10 years younger pre-The West Wing Josh and Leo at the same time really kept throwing me, since they are both so distinctive to me now.
It's actually pretty fascinating. Seeing what's done in 90 seconds on film in 1990 that then turns into 9+ minutes on TV in 2024 is interesting.
There is no planet on which this would have been adapted into a movie today. However, in 1990, it did $200M (which is like a $500M+ blockbuster today).
There are certain beat-for-beat scene repeats, that are almost comical when watching the show, and the type of exposition required /allowed in 2024 clearly absent in a 1990 film adaptation. I don't think I was plot spoiled.
Having both a 10 years younger pre-The West Wing Josh and Leo at the same time really kept throwing me, since they are both so distinctive to me now.
The actually really interesting.
Then there's also of course the chance that the show eventually veers from whatever the movie did, which could still make it fresh for movie watchers, while also giving you your own kind of anticipation (will they stick to the movie's story/twist or not).
Then there's also of course the chance that the show eventually veers from whatever the movie did, which could still make it fresh for movie watchers, while also giving you your own kind of anticipation (will they stick to the movie's story/twist or not).
Rudyjax said:
30+ years in corporate work and I'v heard it very infrequently except for my boss from Boston early in my career.
Pretty common occurrence at my office.
I didn't even notice they were using that word at all. I mean, it's not like The Big Lebowski
TCTTS said:
I've never understood the idea that scripted/fictional dramas are somehow supposed to mirror every detail of real life. When they've always instead depicted varying levels of heightened realities, in which Aaron Sorkin perfectly describes the dialogue as what people would say if they had an extra ten seconds to think about every line that came out of their mouths.
Not to mention scene length constraints… the amount of exposition that has to be eloquently doled out… the emotional check points that have to be hit, etc… it all adds up to an attempt to find the most economical way to tell a story, which often results in, say, things like arguments taking place in locations and in front of people they probably would take place in front of in real life. Also, in this particular case, the arguments, the language… those things help maximize the drama, and I personally can't imagine this show being as good with any of that stuff dialed down.
Think of it this way… documentaries are photographs, while scripted movies/TV are paintings. The entire aim of the former is accuracy, fidelity, etc, while the aim of the latter is more impressionistic, where reality is often bent to help arrive at a greater thematic truth. In other words, if you're looking for hyper-accuracy, go watch a true crime documentary. Or, better yet, go to your local courthouse and sit in on a real-life trial. Otherwise, IMO, this is some of the best writing/storytelling I've seen in a while, and I could not be more impressed with how emotional, economical, and well-structured it all is. It's damn near a masterclass so far, if I'm being completely honest.
Rusty's house is the most unrealistic thing about this show by far
Cook county DA's office must pay big law money in this universe
Dude, his wife is paying the bills with her art gallery sales (that she just got suspended from).Quote:
Rusty's house is the most unrealistic thing about this show by far
Cook county DA's office must pay big law money in this universe
It already veered big time on a major plot point early on. It is a big change in how you look at the dead woman. Other than that it's generally following.
Really well done.
Def watch the movie after the series.
Really well done.
Def watch the movie after the series.
It's so weird. I've read the book and seen the movie, but don't remember either.Sazerac said:
It already veered big time on a major plot point early on. It is a big change in how you look at the dead woman. Other than that it's generally following.
Really well done.
Def watch the movie after the series.
I guess I've killed too many brain cells since high school.
This show is now 4 for 4 in both overall quality and cliffhangers. Just so damn good.
I didn't care for this episode at all. You can clearly see where this is going. We're really down to about 4 "suspects" (none of whom have been labeled suspects).
The Rusty character is too over the top angry/dramatic.
So you know that with 4 episodes left that these mini-cliffhangers are just red herrings.
David E Kelley's writing here is just not great. His The Practice was the first adult show I ever got hooked on. He's using the same exact writing playbook here. The difference there was that it was long meandering season, and you never really knew when a story was going to stop.
Here- you know it's going 8 episodes, so every cliffhanger is like "that's just a red herring".
The Rusty character is too over the top angry/dramatic.
So you know that with 4 episodes left that these mini-cliffhangers are just red herrings.
David E Kelley's writing here is just not great. His The Practice was the first adult show I ever got hooked on. He's using the same exact writing playbook here. The difference there was that it was long meandering season, and you never really knew when a story was going to stop.
Here- you know it's going 8 episodes, so every cliffhanger is like "that's just a red herring".
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I can't at all "clearly" see where this is going, as I have absolutely no idea who killed her.
But also, for me at least, I kind of sort of don't care.
Because, perosnally, I think the writing is so good, and the show moves/is structured so well, that I'm just along for the ride.
Also, since when have whodunits like this not had red herring after red herring? That's... kind of the whole point. And for someone like me, who has no clue where it's going, ONE of the supposed seven cliffhangers will have to come back around in some way. So while I'm not falling for every one, it's still interesting to speculate which ones are true red herrings, half red herrings, etc. Also, it's not like each new cliffhanger has been a new false suspect. Rather, they've each been revelations that have moved the plot forward in tangible ways.
But also, for me at least, I kind of sort of don't care.
Because, perosnally, I think the writing is so good, and the show moves/is structured so well, that I'm just along for the ride.
Also, since when have whodunits like this not had red herring after red herring? That's... kind of the whole point. And for someone like me, who has no clue where it's going, ONE of the supposed seven cliffhangers will have to come back around in some way. So while I'm not falling for every one, it's still interesting to speculate which ones are true red herrings, half red herrings, etc. Also, it's not like each new cliffhanger has been a new false suspect. Rather, they've each been revelations that have moved the plot forward in tangible ways.
Definitely feels like when we get to the end, there's only going to be "maybe" one character who did it was well written.Quote:
Because, perosnally, I think the writing is so good, and the show moves/is structured so well, that I'm just along for the ride.
It's obviously either Tommy (Peter Saarsgard's character) bc why else is he here in this role (and that's not been a well written one) or Raymond's wife (bc she got waaaay to much screen time for that role- but that wasn't well written either).
She plays Eugenia.LMCane said:
who is she on the show- I don't recognize her.
On the topic of this being a show for entertainment, my wife and I both realized something that frustrates us on this show and so many others - they try to make some things realistic that make things harder on the viewer in an attempt to make things authentic.
The audio of a recording or radio conversation shouldn't be difficult to hear for the audience. If a text message is important to the story, I shouldn't have to read over a characters shoulder/pause to read it.
The audio of a recording or radio conversation shouldn't be difficult to hear for the audience. If a text message is important to the story, I shouldn't have to read over a characters shoulder/pause to read it.
I"m going to say that O-T ***benle is a ****ing amazing actor.
I've seen him in Handmaids Tale, Loot, and now Presumed Innocent and his voice is different in all three, his mannerisms are all different... He's really impressed me.
I've seen him in Handmaids Tale, Loot, and now Presumed Innocent and his voice is different in all three, his mannerisms are all different... He's really impressed me.
I'm interested to see what happens coming out of this.
Twisty legal drama were ALL the rage on broadcast in the 80s/90s. (And David E Kelley, writing on this show, was a big part of that.)
This show just showed you could attach a big star to a legal series, up the level of production, and boom, you've got something again.
There is a whole John Grisham catalog just sitting out there that could be optioned and cast and churned into blockbuster miniseries tmrw.
Which was also what was happening in the 90s on the movie front- Tom Cruise, Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Matt Damon all dropped into Grisham adaptations. And those were mostly considered bad, compared to the book, because it was all rushed.
These 8 episode type series, with that star power (Gyllenhaal applies here) really works.
Twisty legal drama were ALL the rage on broadcast in the 80s/90s. (And David E Kelley, writing on this show, was a big part of that.)
This show just showed you could attach a big star to a legal series, up the level of production, and boom, you've got something again.
There is a whole John Grisham catalog just sitting out there that could be optioned and cast and churned into blockbuster miniseries tmrw.
Which was also what was happening in the 90s on the movie front- Tom Cruise, Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington, Matt Damon all dropped into Grisham adaptations. And those were mostly considered bad, compared to the book, because it was all rushed.
These 8 episode type series, with that star power (Gyllenhaal applies here) really works.
Featured Stories
See All
21:11
16h ago
1.7k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.6k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. East Texas A&M
by Tom Schuberth
35:14
14h ago
787
Reed Report: Catching up with Boots as A&M hoops is underway
by Luke Evangelist