Jump to content

4-13: "Seven Day Rule" 2013.01.27


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

102 replies to this topic

#91

Firedancer41

Firedancer41

    Channel Surfer

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Chicago

Posted Feb 1, 2013 @ 9:32 AM

As soon as Peter offered to front Alicia the money, I predicted a future scandal involving misuse of campaign funds.

#92

UsernameFatigue

UsernameFatigue

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 1, 2013 @ 2:01 PM

That crossed my mind as well - that Peter may use campaign funds. In any case, where does St Alicia think her husband is going to come up with $600,000 that she does not have access to?

Also Alicia told both Peter and the bank that she needed $600,000 when she really needs $300,00 upfront and the rest could be paid via future bonuses.

Though I enjoyed the episode, and love any epi that includes Louis Canning, you could drive a truck through some of the inconsistancies.

#93

politikgirl

politikgirl

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted Feb 2, 2013 @ 2:25 PM

I really enjoyed this episode, particularly compared to previous episodes this season, but I'm sick of Canning, Canning trying to poach Alicia, the reconciliation of Alicia and Peter (all things that showed up in this episode) and the general lack of direction of the show compared to the earlier seasons. I also think this season really lacks Alicia/Will scenes - not necessarily romantic scenes, but anything. How did they go from such close friends to lovers to the indifference they seem to show one another? It makes no sense that Will didn't try to talk to Alicia after the partnership stuff happened, considering their past friendship.

#94

marceline

marceline

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 2, 2013 @ 5:20 PM

I don't find Peter offering Alicia the money that unusual. He and Jackie clearly come from money. The kids go to private school and have a trust. He was a high powered lawyer once too.

#95

CozyKat

CozyKat

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 2, 2013 @ 7:04 PM

I also think this season really lacks Alicia/Will scenes - not necessarily romantic scenes, but anything. How did they go from such close friends to lovers to the indifference they seem to show one another? It makes no sense that Will didn't try to talk to Alicia after the partnership stuff happened, considering their past friendship.


I too miss their scenes quite a bit, but I think the show has kind of painted itself into a corner here - without making them true adversaries or true lovers, or being willing to explore any more of their college-era backstory, all the other possible Willicia conversations have been thoroughly covered in the first three seasons - unless the writers are ready to shake up the storyline more than they have so far. Will and Alicia already had the "hiring/promotion-not-based-on-entitlement" talk in "Marthas and Caitlins" (as well as countless idealist v. cynical pragmatist work debates), so I can see why it makes dramatic sense to have Diane step in this time. I do enjoy the uneasy-alliance, shifting-sands professional relationships on the show, especially between women, and there's no such thing as too much Diane in my book.

I don't find Peter offering Alicia the money that unusual. He and Jackie clearly come from money. The kids go to private school and have a trust. He was a high powered lawyer once too.

I can't help remembering the end of Season 1, when Peter was in jail and Alicia thought a Lockhart Gardner layoff would leave her unable to pay her basic monthly bills and support her kids, suggesting that there wasn't a handy Florrick nest egg to fall back on, even in a crisis. And Peter earns less in his public-sector job than Alicia does now, right? But I guess I'll hand-wave those inconsistencies in the name of "drama."

#96

ChocButterfly

ChocButterfly

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Feb 2, 2013 @ 7:06 PM

I don't find Peter offering Alicia the money that unusual. He and Jackie clearly come from money. The kids go to private school and have a trust. He was a high powered lawyer once too.


They may come from money, but what we've seen on the show is that they didn't have much left. In season 1, Alicia had to sell the house and get a job to support the kids and pay for Peter's trial. If Peter had had money, wouldn't he have used it? Then, when Jackie tried to buy the house, she used the kid's trust fund. That means she couldn't get the money on her won, cause she didn't have any. Also, when Alicia was thinking about divorcing Peter and she sought David Lee's help, he told her that she could be liable for alimony, because she made more money in the private sector than Peter as the State Attorney. Peter hasn't changed jobs, so if Alicia cannot get together $600K, how can Peter have that kind of money? And it sounded like he had it to spare. That doesn't make any sense.

#97

stealinghome

stealinghome

    Stalker

Posted Feb 2, 2013 @ 7:54 PM

he told her that she could be liable for alimony, because she made more money in the private sector than Peter as the State Attorney. Peter hasn't changed jobs, so if Alicia cannot get together $600K, how can Peter have that kind of money?

I thought the gist of that scene was that Alicia should wait until Peter had become SA again before divorcing him (if memory serves, she had that conversation after he'd won the vote but before Peter retook office). DLee's point was that her alimony would be a lot less (if any) if she waited a year until Peter would have a full year of the SA salary on his slate. Which implies that he probably makes a decent chunk of change as SA, perhaps even roughly on par with Alicia.

However, I totally agree that even IF Peter is an amazingly-paid SA, it's wildly inconsistent with what we've been previously shown to think that he has $600k just lying around.

Edited by stealinghome, Feb 2, 2013 @ 8:01 PM.


#98

bigredcat7

bigredcat7

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 3, 2013 @ 6:04 PM

I thought all of Peter's assets were frozen while he was in prison? Wouldn't that explain why Alicia didn't have Peter's family money to fall back on?

#99

ChocButterfly

ChocButterfly

    Couch Potato

  • Gender:Female

Posted Feb 3, 2013 @ 9:20 PM

I thought all of Peter's assets were frozen while he was in prison? Wouldn't that explain why Alicia didn't have Peter's family money to fall back on?

But then, when he was cleared, Alicia was still worried about loosing her job and supporting the kids. I think, it was too long ago, I may not be remembering it well.

Edit to add: I almost forgot, I really like Maddie just plainly admitting she was an atheist. I kind of like her. So ok, maybe we can't trust her, but can we really trust Peter? I wouldn't vote for Peter either way.

Edited by ChocButterfly, Feb 3, 2013 @ 9:23 PM.


#100

marceline

marceline

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 4, 2013 @ 8:30 AM

I thought all of Peter's assets were frozen while he was in prison? Wouldn't that explain why Alicia didn't have Peter's family money to fall back on?


Yeah. That's why he had donors paying for his defense. That's how Eli came in to the picture.

It just seems like we've seen enough talk about trusts for the kids, private school tuition and buying houses to see that neither Florrick is exactly eating out of dumpsters. There's money there. Maybe Peter would take out a loan the same way Alicia was going to but I have no problem believing that he could get his hands on some cash.

#101

Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

    Stalker

Posted Feb 4, 2013 @ 8:36 AM

Edit to add: I almost forgot, I really like Maddie just plainly admitting she was an atheist. I kind of like her. So ok, maybe we can't trust her, but can we really trust Peter? I wouldn't vote for Peter either way.


I liked that too and I feel the same way about Peter. I mean yes he is religious but is religious because he wants to be or because he needed a way to indicate he was a better person after he got out of prison? If I was a voter that is what I would be wondering.

#102

soobsessed

soobsessed

    Channel Surfer

  • Gender:Female

Posted Feb 5, 2013 @ 10:21 AM

I knew Alicia's happiness wouldn't last she was so estatic. I knew something was up just couln't put my finger on it. I'm also one of those who didn't get the big deal around Julianna Margulies awards or acting until this episode. I'm abeliever now, also not in God. Is it just me or is Matt more smiley around Archie/Kalinda? That scene in the boardroom I kept waiting for him to burst with laughter.

#103

John Potts

John Potts

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 19, 2013 @ 5:48 AM

I found this episode frustrating, because while Alicia is supposed to be brilliant and incisive, it took her far longer than me to work out why the firm might be offering her a partnership now (and she had more time than me, not less) and it was nice to see that Cary seemed to realise immediately that it was a money raising scheme for the firm. Though that did seem to be a running problem this episode - shouldn't Alicia have realsied that becoming a partner in the firm would have costs as well as benefits (it would mean taking on a portion of the firm's debt, for a start, even if she didn't need to "buy in")? It's like her only realising now that some of the people she defends might actually be guilty (and it's still her job to get them off). And the ham fisted way W & D went about presenting the partnership deal only served to make Canning's offer more attractive - which is probably not the outcome they were hoping for.

As for the CotW, that seemed rather uninspiring as well. I couldn't actually believe that anyone could be as naive as the bride to be was (even if you think your marriage is made in heaven and will last all eternity doesn't mean you don't plan against the "impossible" outcome of it turning out badly, particularly when your fiance is asking you to sign an agreement that is partially predicated on exactly that). And would an agreement to having sex twice a week even be enforceable? Surely that would be potentially coercing someone into having sex which would surely be illegal (and as such, unenforceable, if I understand correctly).