"Callisto" is already unrealistic... - Bull (2016) Discussion

[–] Blu765 8 years ago

Considering your confusion about the things you mentioned, It sounds as if you should have watch more than just one minute of it.

reply

[–] AnonGuest33 8 years ago

cases. Something that is a very real thing. Callisto is clearly a stand-in for Marshall, TX where one quarter of all patent cases are heard in the united States

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

That aside, there are too many implausibilities, illegalities and unethical behaviours throughout the episode to even go into here.

Not to mention the continual nagging of issue of "who the heck is paying for this"? Including them packing up and moving their operations to TX.

It is all becoming a very tough pill to swallow.

reply

[–] ThisGuy84 8 years ago

We get it, you're very intelligent. 

If you don't like fiction, don't watch it. Pretty simple.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

I just don't like my intelligence being insulted.

"Fiction" which we are supposed to perceive as being based on the professional life of the fraud Dr Phil who is also EP? "Fiction" like this still needs to have a basis in reality and such a thing as the actual legal system.

reply

[–] ThisGuy84 8 years ago

I don't think they've ever said that it's supposed to be based on the life - professional or otherwise - of Dr. Phil. Only that the character of Dr. Bull is based loosely on the man himself (though I admit I could be wrong about this, so if you have a source I'd honestly like to see it, no sarcasm  ).

"Fiction" like this still needs to have a basis in reality and such a thing as the actual legal system

No, it really doesn't.  This is entertainment. If you want 'reality,' stick to documentaries.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

"Inspired by" means "based on" more closely than "loosely" based on in my book:

http://deadline.com/2016/08/bull-tca-michaeal-weatherly-cbs-dr-phil-mcgraw-1201801403/

When dealing with this fragile balanced legal system, it still needs to work within the constraints of that system, and not invent its own reality. The "entertainment" is constructed around that framework.

reply

[–] ThisGuy84 8 years ago

"Inspired by" means "based on" more closely than "loosely" based on in my book

I guess we read different books then.  To me, in this context, the two are synonymous.

If someone tries to cite an episode of Bull in an actual courtroom, then I'll be on your side. Until then, I don't care if on the show they use Texas law to resolve a case in New York, or if they make up completely new laws. As long as it entertains me, I'm good. If you can't say the same, then this show just isn't for you.

reply

[–] Kunovega 8 years ago

Inspired by is not the same as being based on

You can be inspired by reading about combat veterans in real wars and than go on to write fiction about space marines fighting aliens

Do you know how many horror movies use the term "inspired by real events" ? Have you ever looked up what they were inspired by?

Some of the most bizzare and twisted horror movies containing fictional magic beings are "inspired by true events" but the event is something as mundane as a normal murder case

Inspiration is the least factual form of using a real life event to create fiction because the events and the people in the fictional story do not need to be anything even remotely similar to the end result

In this case "Bull" being inspired by the real life of Dr Phil isn't using even one single fact about Dr Phil's life or cases aside from the fact that at one point he was a jury consultant.

They aren't even portraying the same kind of jury consultant, none of his cases, and the technology involved for the show didn't even exist back then it was all just basic psychological profiling nothing using social media (which didn't exist) and so on.

You are putting way too much value on the "inspired by" concept

For example:

More than a dozen movies have all been "inspired by true events" that were all the same event. I'll name just three:

Norman Bates ('Psycho')
Jame Gumb ('The Silence of the Lambs')
Leatherface ('Texas Chainsaw Massacre')

Are any of those characters or movies similar? Aside from being horror films they have almost nothing in common.

Every single one of them carries the tag line "inspired by true events"; and the reality? They all used the same event: the life of Ed Gein a notorious killer and grave robber.

Sure, he was an inspiration for those films, not one of them bothered to be even remotely factual about his life, none of them were "based on" his life and none of them were documentary attempts.

Bull is much the same, it's inspired by Dr Phil, or rather the fact that he was a jury consultant. That's literally the beginning and end of what was copied; nothing else about his life is being used as storyline or character development.

You just really don't understand how little it means when something is used for inspiration.

reply

[–] readerf61 8 years ago

Everything you wrote is true. But how often is the event or person who inspired those films or shows the Executive Producer?

And, yes, I do think it makes a difference. The EP gets some say in "how" that inspiration is presented.
________

No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.

reply

[–] Kunovega 8 years ago

Even as executive producer this is more of a "wouldn't it be cool if things were this way" type of situation

Bull is an idealistic, over the top rendition of the concept of a jury consultant and with the addition of modern technology and social media access compared to what wasn't available to Dr Phil decades ago when he was one

At best you might say this is what Dr Phil would have wanted to be; it doesn't mean he's claiming this is what it was like

So again, it's inspired by, but not based on

As an artist I make artwork inspired by many things I've experienced in life. It doesn't mean that artwork is accurate to reality all of the time

Take a photographer and an abstract artist to the same event and tell them both to create something inspired by what they see

In both cases they are the creator of the artwork, inspired by the same events, something they personally experienced. One gives you an actual photo of something that happened there. The other gives you a splatter painting with no straight lines.

You can be an executive producer of something, inspired by your own experiences and still not be copying it with precision.

reply

[–] readerf61 8 years ago

"At best you might say this is what Dr. Phil would have wanted to be; it doesn't mean he's claiming this is what it was like."

And this is where, I think, my whole problem with the show stumbles and falls. He's made Bull and his consulting firm so big, as he may have wanted it to be, that it fails the test of believability even with a healthy dose of suspension of belief. I'm not trying to say this is for everyone, but I find I just can't get past the money spent on clients with no money coming into the business. I understand that others have made assumptions about his financial success, but I don't see it. When the airlines called him after the crash, because he was the best, that was nice, but he didn't take the job and never made a dime off that case. Assumptions can only take the premise so far, there has to be some concrete "show" and not just all "tell."

_________

No, David. No one is happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set.

reply

[–] AnonGuest33 8 years ago

It is this smallish town in East Texas (close to Tyler which is larger) where a federal district court sits and through a series of events that court has become ground zero for patent cases (mainly because that court is seen as plaintiff friendly). To that end there are attorneys and their teams from all over the country (in particular California due to tech cases) constantly in and out of that area. Meeting space is at a premium. Restaurants that are generally appealing to well off coastal attorneys are even more scarce.

While Bull exaggerated the fish out of water aspect some there was more than a kernel of truth to it

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

I am not talking about the "fish out of water" aspect. I am talking about who is paying for this continual (3 out of 4 episodes so far) of essentially pro bono cases? And in tonight's case they even packed up and moved most of the team to TX.

I understand the concept of the similarities to the town in TX. It is just everything else, such as the setting up in a barn (with particulates in the air and temperature fluxes neither of which are good for computers), the judge picking the jury, the former FBI girl getting in there before they arrive as a waitress to work breakfast lunch AND dinner, the illegal breaking and entering and other illegal tactics of the plaintiff's attorney, the tampering with the storm warning system for an entire town/region, and on and on and on.

reply

[–] AnonGuest33 8 years ago

Bull is very successful at his given career. In episode 2 both the airlines and high dollar attorneys were calling him as bodies were being pulled from the plane wreckage. That told he in high demand and therefore makes a boatload of money in his given profession. Enough to afford pro bono cases. You may not agree but I feel it was pretty clear that Bull is at the top of the list for many a high dollar case (most of which are civil) for both corporate attorneys and high dollar trial attorneys (think John Edwards who became a millionaire many times over through his trial attorney work).

As far as them moving the team to Texas that was my point about there being more than a kernel of truth there. There is more than one legal team that has done just that in Marshall.

As for the other stuff, yes that is unrealistic but I don't see it anymore unrealistic than all of quick forensics, hacking, illegal break-ins, etc that we see on the other CBS procedurals. None of that bothers me even though that too has little basis in real world of criminal investigations/the law.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

They can invent whatever "reality" about how "in demand" he is. Presto chango, disbelief suspended.

reply

[–] AnonGuest33 8 years ago

As bodies were being pulled from that plane wreck both the airlines and trial lawyers who put together class action lawsuits were blowing up his phone (an unfortunately how quickly lawyers got into the mix of that tragedy was all too realistic). Both of those groups have deep deep pockets. Far deeper than the millionaires he represented in episodes 1 and 2 (the singer). It was Bull's choice who to work with.

reply

[–] Blu765 8 years ago

That aside, there are too many implausibilities, illegalities and unethical behaviours throughout the episode to even go into here.

I think one of the points of the show is that Bull does not always do things perfectly ethically nor perfectly legally.

reply

[–] bellaboo621 8 years ago

As someone who has prepared for and attended patent litigation cases in the Eastern District of Texas, last night's episode was a piece of crap all away around. It was insulting to the federal judges who hear the cases, the courthouse staff and the jurors. Shame on the writers of this mess.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

Thank you Bellaboo. Nevermind, poof! Suspension of disbelief because it is "entertainment". The deedadees will say "if you want reality watch a documentary"!! LOL

reply

[–] bellaboo621 8 years ago

I don't need it to be a docudrama but this episode was beyond the pale. Most legal dramas are pretty much off base with time frames and such, I get that, but this was so far off the mark it was more like a comedy. Nothing was even remotely close to an actual courtroom. But I guess only New York knows how to try cases. We people in the sticks are nothing but buffoons and incapable of trying difficult patent cases.

reply

[–] bcs-14856 8 years ago

FYI, that "town in Texas" is actually Mt Vernon, NY. In the background, shortly after arriving in Callisto - Proctor Drug, 32 Gramatan Ave, Mount Vernon, NY.

reply

[–] amastantuoni 8 years ago

As someone who was born, raised and lived in Mt Vernon, NY for over 40 years, I got a big kick out seeing my hometown fill in for Callisto. I noticed it in the previews when they showed Bull sitting on the railing in front of the Court House (which is City Hall). I thought it was Mt. Vernon and knew I was right when they showed Proctor in the preview.

The funny thing is Mt. Vernon is as far away as you can get from a Texas town :-) It seems that CBS likes to use Mt. Vernon (which makes sense because of their use of NYC-based shows) because City Hall was featured in a Season 5 (#11) Episode of Person of Interest - Synecdoche.

reply

[–] tdickson 8 years ago

Beautiful Art Deco architecture there.

reply

[–] mlaiuppa 8 years ago

I hated this episode because it is real.

There *is* an area in Texas exactly like this. It is infamous for being the go to town for when you want to prosecute a patent violation and win. And no, you can't request a change in venue. Google it.

How a town in east Texas became the epicenter for patent lawsuits. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/How-east-Texas-became-the-epicenter-for-patent-6211845.php

A small town judge hears a quarter of the nation's patent lawsuits. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-small-town-judge-who-sees-a-quarter-of-the-nations-patent-cases

So small a town, so many patents. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/24ward.html?_r=0

As for your first beef, all of the parts had been tested on humans thoroughly 17 years ago. She just put them together in a different way. It wasn't going to kill anyone.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

Just because such a town exists does not excuse their implausible, illegal and unethical behaviours.

reply

[–] Zippy_Zip 8 years ago

I never saw him, but we had a judge that used to eat raw hamburger while judging.
I think they finally tired of it, and got rid of him.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

Or he died from hookworm.

reply

[–] InfiniteMonkeysTyping 8 years ago

I never saw him, but we had a judge that used to eat raw hamburger while judging.

There is a current federal judge who has been known to chew tobacco while on the bench.

reply

[–] InfiniteMonkeysTyping 8 years ago

Just because such a town exists does not excuse their implausible, illegal and unethical behaviours.

Illegal and unethical behaviors exist in the real world - even within the justice system.

Plus, I don't think this show is trying to "excuse" any illegal behaviors (whether they exist in the real world or not); it is simply including those behaviors as part of their fictional drama.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

I beg to differ. Unless Bull stops using the illegal/unethical tactics and the viewing public's acceptance of them as "part of reality" then he and they are part of the problem.

reply

[–] InfiniteMonkeysTyping 8 years ago

I beg to differ. Unless Bull stops using the illegal/unethical tactics and the viewing public's acceptance of them as "part of reality" then he and they are part of the problem.

That would only be true (i.e., that the viewing public won't accept Bull and his team because they skirt legalities) if the people Bull was representing were guilty or were bad people who did bad things. If Bull used unethical means to get guilty and/or bad people acquitted, then the viewing public in general probably would not like him or the show.

However, That isn't what is happening here. Bull's clients have so far been people with whom the viewing public can sympathize and root for.

Let's turn the situation around...
...when a guilty/bad person is let go because of LEGAL technicalities, does the viewing public say "Hooray! I know the guy is guilty, but the law is the law, so I'm glad he got off!"? No; most of the general viewing public doesn't like it when a guilty person is set free because "the law is the law".

Now, I'm not saying it should be OK in real life to use illegal means to get innocent and/or "good" people acquitted, but whether it is "OK" or not is not the point; the point is that the only thing viewers need to care about is whether they willfully accept the fact that the fictional character Bull does sometimes go around the law and ethics, but are still entertained by the stories and still find the main characters likable enough, even when they DO skirt around those legalities and ethics.

reply

[–] klibby716 8 years ago

But you can't bring a patent infringement suit until the product has actually been sold. She hadn't sold any of her product, so there is no infringement. Also, in order to bring it in that district it has to have been sold in that district. All she had to do was refuse to sell it in that district, and the case couldn't be brought there.

Even if all the parts had previously been tested, she would still need FDA approval for the combination, because she would have to show the combination was safe and effective. Some products that was individually safe interact in ways that can cause harm. This would take years of testing. Also, she did change things, as she said in her conversation with the plaintiff in the storm shelter.

reply

[–] jptrugger-84-585771 8 years ago

There you go interjecting more facts and reality into things... 😀

reply