Airing Tuesdays 10pm this fall on CBS ...


I have never ever wanted to watch a CBS/legal drama before in my life but damn, they're throwing Marguilles and Baranski at me with a side helping of Mr. Big and Logan from Gilmore Girls. Usually I can look past the characters people have played before, but there are WAY many.

Anyway, consider me in for at least the pilot ... wherever Marguilles goes, I follow. Anyone else interested in this?

Hasn't Margulies already had her failure on a Lawyer show?

I am planning to give it a try because JM is the lead.

Yep.

Oh damn. I love love love Chris Noth from way back, but I hate hate hate Julianna Margulies from way back too. I've never seen her appeal.

I want to support Chris, but I don't want to see Julianna. I've never liked any character she's played.

If Chris doesn't have a big part (since the guy's in jail and all), then I'll probably just skip it.

Interesting... Brian Ford Sullivan at thefutoncritic.com likes the pilot. Reads a bit spoilery, but there's no OMG twists revealed.



From the review, it sounds like his character might be released from jail while the appeals process goes on. From, a dramatic tension standpoint, that would make sense, assuming he'd be under house arrest, so that JM's character and his are forced to live under the same roof.

Edit: I forgot to use spoiler tags, just in case for the above

I got this script with two that I expected to like and found myself enjoying it a lot more. Completely agree with the guy at futon, it was surprisingly good, and the previews are looking to deliver on it. Definitely one of the best drama pilots this season, along with Parenthood, IMO.

OK, this show has two semi-big name TV stars with Julianna Margulies and Chris Noth. However... who on earth came up with the title of this show? It's awful. It's probably one of the worst titles for a TV show I have ever seen.

This is just generalizing, but do many men want to watch a show about a female lawyer who is putting on the pants for the household and working because her husband is in jail? Do many women want to watch a show that is titled "The Good Wife", which implies that a woman should be staying home and baking cookies and doing whatever it is to be a good wife and take care of her husband?

This show has epic fail written all over it. I tuned in to "Canterbury's Law" on the basis of the title alone. There is nothing about the title "The Good Wife" that I find appealing.

Personally speaking, I've never tuned into a show because of its title. "Canterbury's Law" might have arguably had a better title (though I don't think it did), but that didn't save it from cancellation. I would have tuned into Canterbury's Law but from what I read of the show, it wasn't something that excited me.

I've had my fill of medical and lawyer procedurals, but have always found exceptions if there seems to be a twist or something unique about a new show. I like the idea that this is a woman who after public scandal finds herself in the workplace again. That could make things interesting, especially as it touches on so many real life political scandals. I like JM and Noth, have heard some good things about the pilot, and the premise sounds interesting. I'll give it a shot.

It's going to have a sympathetic defense lawyer. Not enough of those on TV these days. I'm in.

The thing that really grabbed me into at least giving it a shot was the whole twist of it all that saves it from generic legal drama-ness. She's a forty-ish woman who's competing with 25 year olds in her workplace. Compare to the utter blandness of the other legal drama that got picked up this year, The Deep End, where they're a bunch of 25 year old stock-characters striving to achieve bla bla bla aspirationcakes. The character has a lot going against her from the get-go, which is enough to entice me to give it a go.

Well that, and I find Christine Baranski oddly attractive.

I don't care for the title, but I don't hate it. Given the older CBS audience, I don't think "The Good Wife" will exactly turn viewers off.

Suspension of belief required: she hasn't practiced law in 13 years, and on day one, POP, she's back in front of a jury? Nope. I don't think so.

But I enjoyed the interaction amongst the family. How would you protect your teenage children from media bombardment? You couldn't.

I wish I could be more eloquent, but the only word that can describe this for me was...

Yawn.

And I realize I am likely in the minority, but it dragged for me. I don't think I'll be back.

It's possible, not likely, but possible. The whole storyline was a little farfetched, or Christine Baranski must be a horrible lawyer. If anything, a junior associate just humiliated her by getting a case dismissed that Baranski nearly lost. However, Julianna Margulies saves this show. She just has a quality that rises above the marginal storyline, and the character's personal life seems a whole lot more interesting than her work life. I also like her chemistry with Josh Charles. I am interested to see where they go with all this.

And maybe it is just me, but I just hate Matt Czurchy. I disliked him a lot on Gilmore Girls, and I dislike him here even though he only had a few lines of dialogue. I'm sure this is the point, but he just screams "smarmy" and "asshole-ish." Though perhaps he will redeem himself at some point.

I liked it enough. It has Josh Charles and that in itself gets it more views.

I enjoyed it. Nothing ground-breaking but the interactions within the family were great (especially Alicia and her son: "You're adorable"; and yes, he is). And I loved Christine Baranski, even though I feel she's likely to be at least somewhat of a villain.

I loved it. The acting was top notch from everyone, but especially JM. And getting the guy from Sports Night as her old friend and possible romantic interest-my law show cup runneth over. I loved watching the smug drain from the prosecution's faces after she started figuring out the withheld evidence.

Interesting twist that Baranski is only her mentor as long as she doesn't compete. Writing was so good and JM's ability to transform herself into any character she plays-yeah, I'm gushing. I'm hooked!

This sums up my reaction pretty much exactly, plus Josh Charles + Julianna Margulies + Chris Noth = I'm going to give it a giant benefit of the doubt. Julianna had strong, mostly believable scenes with just about everyone, from the guy who leaked the sex tape to the actors playing her kids. I'll keep watching for the acting, even though the plot was fairly useless. I saw every single plot twist in the trial coming from a mile away, except I thought suspicion would fall on the second wife herself rather than her brother. I hope the plots in upcoming episodes will be a little less lame; even if this is a character show rather than a plot show, it would be nice if the plots didn't completely suck.

Julianna Margulies usually annoys me, but she won me over. I watched for Josh Charles and didn't even know it would be a lawyer show, so I was pleasantly surprised that it kept my attention.

All during the show, I was recognizing HITGs. Though I agree that Matt Czurchy will always read as an smarmy asshole. It's in his smirk. What else was the cop from the trial in? He's so familiar yet I can't place him. Loved the way he came to attention during the testimony about the brother and then scurried out as fast as possible. I heard/read/saw somewhere that is how cases are worked, where a plausable suspect is found, then they start building a case.

I had no intention of watching the show but it came on after NCIS:LA and loved it! Chris Noth, Josh Charles, Christine Baranski..excellent!

I don't mind the name, though it doesn't do anything for me one way or the other.

Hubby liked it too, which means I'll more than likely come back next week :)

I have loved Josh Charles since Sports Night- a criminally canceled show. I have high hopes here.

Re the title: I think it's perfect. She's the antithesis of the woman standing in pearls next to the cheating politician husband. I took the title as ironic.

Well, what a surprise. Watched this one on a lark after NCIS-LA, since I didn't think it would be a guy's type of show. Enjoyed it very much: good, smart writing and great acting. I'm pushing all of my chips to the center of this table, I'm in.

It was a little too Lifetime for me, but I'll give it a couple more episodes based on JM and that Ridley Scott has an executive producer credit.

It was sharp. I liked it. Maybe not must-see but definitely worth-watching. Well acted, good characters. Chris Noth, of course. Also the investigator... played Russell Crowe's PA in that movie about the south of France. Of course, Ridley Scott. She did a good job on the accent.

I'm in.

I like the title a lot.

And I liked Julia M too, although I hated her on ER. I liked that her "mentor" Baranski no doubt didn't really devote herself to the pro bono case and by getting it dismissed Margolis embarrassed her. Nice subplots and relationships set up.

I definitely will continue to watch this. Not a reality show and not a talk show... and it entertained!

I liked it a lot. I was drawn in by Chris Noth, but I stayed for Julianna Margulies. (For some reason, I really want to see Angie Harmon pop up as an ADA, but I know that'll never happen. A girl can dream, though...)

Between this and Drop Dead Diva, I'm set for brand-new shows.

I so wasn't expecting to even watch this show but color me surprised! I really enjoyed it! I was sucked in from the very start and was bummed when the episode was over. I have to remind myself tomorrow to thank my mom for setting my DVR without me knowing!

The amazing slap sound made it worth it for me-- some foley artist had way too much fun with that one.

That's about the only reason I tuned in, well Josh and Christine Baranski. I'm afraid, however, that I will always be thinking of Sports NIght and Cybil when I see them. I worry that I will compare their characters on TGW to their previous characters and find them wanting. I know it's unfair comparing drama to comedy but Josh and Christine are so good at comedy, I hope I won't be constantly waiting for them to come up with a funny line or especially in Christine's case, a caustic one.

I thought this show was just awful in spite of the excellent reviews. I think CBS used the backstory of the embarrassed politician's wife to draw an audience and Chris Noth's political problems seemed to have very little really to do with the development of tonight's episode storyline.

This is like "LA Law." It is just another lawyer/trial show. We get a defendant and a trial. CH's backstory was a small part of the plot of the episode.

The acting seemed shtiky very full of caricature. And the "Twilight Zone" ringtone was cloying. It pushed the envelope for me. I was bored, easily distracted, and I am done.

I'd say she's the exact woman - imho, it's showing the difference between the public face of that woman dealing with the situation, and the reality the public doesn't see. To get her family through the media circus and the change in economic status with the least amount of damage, that takes a woman with the strength to do more than just stand meekly and look supportive.

I love all the actors, although as much as I like Matt C., his character might be the one relentless drop of persecution too many for me unless he's used sparingly. Then again, I supposed he has a time limit on his presence in the series.

Neither am I thrilled with The Good Wife as a title. I noticed that the bit of video segue they had showed a "the" and "wife," but I didn't see "good." That made me think The Wife would have worked better... as in, "what do you suppose happens with the wife in those situations?"

I mainly tuned in for Chris Noth, and came close to calling "foul!" at the "six months later" time-fade and seeing him listed as a guest star, after having been featured so prominently in the previews. Hey, CBS! You remember what Alicia said about not making a woman angry? Yeah.

I also felt it stretched credulity that the scandal was so very big, six months later. How many of us are still talking about Spitzer, or Vitter, or Craig? Heck, even Sanford and his hike along the Appalachian Trail rarely touches the news anymore. Some of the references were valid--the judge is reacting to a grudge he has against her husband, for example. But both her kids encountering it at school (okay, so the son encouraged it), and the co-worker pulling up the video... that felt somewhat anvillicious.

Other pitiless observations--I adore Matt Czurchy, and did so on Gilmore Girls, but here's clearly been written to be a smarmy ass, so that I will not enjoy. In fact, the antagonists at the officer are just a little too mcuh, in the obnoxious department.

Still, I liked that Alicia and Peter had a scene during visiting hours, and I loved their kids and her mother-in-law. I like that the family seems to care about/respect each other, more or less (we are talking teenagers and mils, here). I'm intrigued enough to watch it again. And I'll keep hoping to hear that Chris Noth is a series regular.

I have to disagree here. While the general public might not care about a political scandal six months after it happens, I would imagine it is still very fresh in the minds of the people one encounters everyday. Alicia could probably walk down the street and nobody would recognize her at all. But start a new job, especially one as cuthroat as this one, and I can pretty much guarantee that your coworkers will still be talking about the incident.

I live in a county that's had its fair share of political scandals in the past year, and can say it's still common to make jokes about Events X, Y, and Z, even though Event X started hitting the fan last December. Trials and appeals can stretch out for a long time, especially if both the state and the feds are involved and as long as those are going on, there will be local headlines.

I like that they're approaching the consequences of Alicia having to return to the workforce after a long employment gap. Be interesting to hear from some lawyers about just how realistically they're handling it.

I really liked it. I'll watch Chris Noth in pretty much anything he does, but add Josh Charles to the mix? Um, YES PLEASE. And Titus Welliver does nothing better than Smarmy Antagonist, so yeah, I'll stay.

Plus Julianna Marguiles has the best name in show business. I like to say it in different accents!

Well, I love Julianna Margulies and Chris Noth so I checked it out. And was amazed to see Christine Baranski, David Paymer AND Josh Charles, all actors who enrich anything they are in. Had no idea who the Gilmore kid was, and didn't particularly like the character or the actor in that role (to me, he needs to more drop-dead handsome as well as smarmy to pull that off. But we'll see - it's early days yet and he'll probably turn out to be my fave).

I didn't expect to watch the whole hour. But I did. And enjoyed it immensely. Hope it keeps up ....

And no, the title doesn't bother me. Nor does it really grab me.

I was happy to see Christina Baranski, and JM won me over. It's nice to see strong women on tv (even they are slightly witchy a la Baranski's character). And the guy from Sports Night!!!

Chris Noth does nothing for me. Partly, I think, because I've seen him falling-down drunk and that tends to take the proverbial bloom off the rose.

I wish that, if the character was going to stay married to the guy, that she had at least slapped in him public because he completely deserved that.

I agree. The rest of the country may move on, but if you are dealing with the people involved in the scandal on a daily basis, it is much more difficult to let it go.

I will say I thought the "two lawyers, one job, who will survive" storyline they set up was silly. I'm much more interested to see the relationship between Margulies and Baranski than watching Margulies compete with her smarmy 25 year old co-worker.

I agree. It was also back in the news because one of the hookers was writing a book (there was a scene with Alicia seeing it on tv). Also, if her husband is appealing that would bring it back to the news as well. It likely did die down for a time but new events in the case have it all over the news again.

I liked the show and will watch again. I'm more interested in Alicia's family life than at the firm so I am hoping for a balance between the two.

The cast is fantastic and I am hoping that once Noth is done filming SATC he'll be on more.

I think this episode was a teaser as there is much more to be revealed and developed. Why hasn't she divorced her husband? How much of the workings of the police does she know? What is her plan? Does she have one?

Other than that, the show was a fairly typical lawyer show.

As an fairly hardcore feminist, who does remember bra burning, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinham, etc., I wasn't offended by the premise because 1) feminist fought for the right to choose our path so if she chose to stay home, etc. fine and 2) cheating husband aside, the show now has some very real elements to it. Alicia is a single working mother who has to rely on extended family to help out.

I'll give it another chance next week.

I was surprised by this show as well. I don't know how long I'll keep watching, but I'm hooked enough to want to see next week's ep.

I don't like the competition with Matt Czurchy's character, but whatever; they have to give her some in-house drama. I also hope they don't go the backstabbing-mentor route with Christine Baranski. Those two need to be allies, not adversaries. Or frenemies, at the very least.

The family stuff was nice, and it was a change to see a daughter- and mother-in-law working together. There's friction, of course, but it doesn't seem contrived. Yet.

I don't need to hear any more age-difference comments, though. We get it. She's been out of the workforce for a while and is competing with the whippersnappers.

I watched on a whim, intending to go to bed around 10:15, but ended up staying for the whole show. My love for Josh Charles aside, I thought it was well done. Of course there were some stretches, lawyer-wise, which is why I ususally don't watch lawyer shows. I see enough of it during the day, and it's all deadly dull, when it isn't completely stressful.

The investigator looked familiar to me, and it was bugging me all through the show. I finally figured it out - she's the older sister from Bend it Like Beckham. I love that movie.

Talk about a slap in the face. I was really interested in the drama potential here: behind the scenes with Eliot and Silda Spitzer. Let's see the kids going to school the next day; the wife overhearing gossip everywhere she goes; etc. Let's see two terrific actors dealing with an interesting trial where a state's attorney is accused of misusing public money. Let's learn about why a smart woman makes the initial decision to stay with a man in this situation.

No, instead, let's avoid all the interesting and original angles on this setup, and make another formulaic law show. I don't appreciate the bait-and-switch.



Not at all realistically. Not at ALL. Putting a brand-new associate alone in charge of a MURDER TRIAL on her first day isn't far-fetched; it's malpractice.

I'm a Chicago lawyer who's done a lot of pro bono work. I'm also a "Law & Order" fan who does not let small errors with evidence rules ruin my enjoyment of a good courtroom show. But here, the entire premise was absurd. A fancy firm drops her into a murder case alone, days before trial? If she doesn't do a good job, the firm is going to switch her out with a different attorney who knows nothing about the case, in the middle of the trial? She's a detective digging up new evidence DURING the trial? She's revealing this unverified brand-new evidence in court during the trial without showing it to the prosecution first? All of this is ridiculous.

They get smaller stuff wrong, too. Having your conviction reviewed by an appellate court is a constitutional right, not something the court can decide to grant or deny. The government has a duty to turn over all potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense; failure to do so is a grave constitutional error. Dog hair on a non-dog-owning victim and suspect is a glaring sign of a third party and failure to disclose it is the kind of thing that would get a conviction overturned.

Finally, the pro bono defendant in this show's Cook County is a middle-class, Honda-driving white woman. Really, CBS? Something very close to 100% of the murder defendants in Cook County who need free counsel are nonwhite. CBS creating this white world inside the Cook County criminal courts is really off-putting to me.

I watched a preview for the show on IMDB yesterday with Juliana Margulies--in it, she explains that it's not strictly a procedural show; that it will be part of the show but it's going to center a lot on the character's lives too.

That said, I watched, I liked. DH didn't care for it. But Josh Charles? Yes, please!

While I agree that some of the case was ridiculous from a legal standpoint, it's kind of a "so what" thing for me. Even shows that attempt to get the legal process correctly often don't, so I just go with it and have fun pointing out what's wrong. I look at it this way, the show isn't about the legal process, it's about Julianna Margulies and the people she deals with as she copes with what her husband did to she and her familly. The legal storylines are secondary.

I agree. It doesn't matter much to me if the legal aspects are 100% accurate. I know that dropping her into a case wasn't realistic. But, I'd rather that then watch her sit in an office and help write a brief or sit in meetings all day. Realistic would be boring IMO. Since they are going to show her at work I'd prefer them to stretch the realism and have her be on cases.

The ratings were good:

I wanted to watch the show that started with that slap! JM did a lot with no words and just her face in that opening scene, very well done. The show that followed, I've mostly seen before. Enjoyed the case and the investigator, but had almost zero interest in the law firm shenanigans (except for Christine Baranski), but the familial stuff held my attention. Especially how cluelessly the husband was talking about her 'playing breadwinner' and how everything would go back to normal. I'm in.

I liked it. I'll be watching weekly.

And how is it that JM gets more beautiful the older she gets?

I'll be interested to see how much play Chris Noth gets. I know he has "guest star" status. Anyone know how many eps he's signed on for?

I agree. I was expecting to see more of a woman dealing with her husband's public betrayal, etc. That slap was great, and I wanted to see everything that happened between that slap and her first day at work. How her family dealt with the scandal as it happened, Chris Noth's character's trial, the moment she decided to go back to work, etc. The writers skipped some juicy storytelling IMO in order to show a predictable legal case. I didn't have that much interest in the case itself, but how she deals with her private life. I would like to see more of that because that's where I think a lot of the dramatic potential lies, otherwise I'm not that interested in the law firm side as I've seen that done a lot and much better on Law and Order. I would like to see her work more closely with the Christine Baranski character. I can't say the premiere impressed me at all, but there are a lot of great actors on this show so I won't dump it yet. The pilot is usually one of the shakiest episodes of a show, so I'll give it another chance. Especially interested in what will happen to her if and when her husband comes back to reclaim his title of "bread winner." The show has the right ingredients to be really good; I hope they use them.