[Kiki17]

Originally Posted by EndlessღLove (View Post) Has he ever made a smart move? Peter is as one dimensional as you can get. I am really trying to "understand" or even "like" him but I can't. Asking your wife to renew your vows because you were tempted by the blonde chick you saw probably twice at work... yeah no

You are obviosly not watching the same show, how is Peter one dimensional? Honestly you can dislike him but NOBODY on this show is one dimensional.
As for the vows I am pretty sure Peter asked in S4......so.

[replendentmiasma]

Originally Posted by Kiki17 (View Post) As for the vows I am pretty sure Peter asked in S4......so.

He did. And that was in the episode called A more perfect union. And I have a feeling that you know this too ... I don't even know why I am posting this.

Oh and yes I agree with you about - nobody on this show is one dimensional.

Maybe they belonged to Derrick Bond's part of the firm Cary left and came back as a 4th year so maybe the reached some kind of a deal with Derrick's employees to stay when he left.

Or maybe before they hired Alicia and Cary they had hired some of them - like a month or two before- and then they had just one opening so the whole Alicia vs Cary.
And maybe they hired some more over the years in season 2 or something and got a few more as a result of the Derrick Bond story line.

[EndlessღLove]

Originally Posted by Kiki17 (View Post) You are obviosly not watching the same show, how is Peter one dimensional? Honestly you can dislike him but NOBODY on this show is one dimensional. As for the vows I am pretty sure Peter asked in S4......so.

Yes and then the issue was never mentioned until Peter met Marilyn and """promoted""" her because she was too pretty. And let's not forget the fact he played with this Governor power to make Alicia win a client AND ruled out Diane as a judge because she belongs to her wife's rival firm. I mean how is he trying to run a "clean office" then? What's his political message? Does he have a cause? He is not even a supporting character, he is a recurring so maybe he is not supposed to be written so deeply (and not even the lead chracters are deeply written, the show lacks characterization). But his actions do impact the plot and I don't see anything but a plain written character.

(by the way,why everyone has left the beautiful Will/Kalinda party,please don't leave me alone there! )

Nooo, you are not alone, they are probably the best relationship in the show right now

Peter made a lot of stupid moves this episode! Threatening Will on the phone when he knows Will has that video of the voter fraud. Giving that speech on social networks paying tax - how is he going to explain going back on that? And won't the press make the connection of him giving that speech and then his wife signing Chum Hum that same day? Also, by not giving Diane the judgeship, he is effectively giving her back to Will as an ally to take down his wife. Not to mention that she will be even more angry and vengeful at the Florricks now that Peter took away her judgeship. I don't think he really thought that through!

Exactly.

[Kiki17]

Originally Posted by EndlessღLove (View Post) Yes and then the issue was never mentioned until Peter met Marilyn and """promoted""" her because she was too pretty. And let's not forget the fact he played with this Governor power to make Alicia win a client AND ruled out Diane as a judge because she belongs to her wife's rival firm. I mean how is he trying to run a "clean office" then? What's his political message? Does he have a cause? He is not even a supporting character, he is a recurring so maybe he is not supposed to be written so deeply (and not even the lead chracters are deeply written, the show lacks characterization). But his actions do impact the plot and I don't see anything but a plain written character.

Again where does any of this indicate one dimensional is my question? I am not even speaking about what he did to Diane or the Marilyn stuff, or abusing his office I was taking your comments by part. First explain to me how is one dimensional.
He's a one-dimensional character... because... they don't... talk about his politics? Or because he does unethical things? I think you are confusing the matter.
Now you are arguing that this show LACKS characterization? This show is NOTHING but characterization You like Diane and Will? If the show lacked characcterization you wouldn't feel anything for them or even invested in them? So no sorry TGW doesn't lack characterization.

[EndlessღLove]

Originally Posted by Kiki17 (View Post) Again where does any of this indicate one dimensional is my question? I am not even speaking about what he did to Diane or the Marilyn stuff, or abusing his office I was taking your comments by part. First explain to me how is one dimensional. He's a one-dimensional character... because... they don't... talk about his politics? Or because he does unethical things? I think you are confusing the matter. Now you are arguing that this show LACKS characterization? This show is NOTHING but characterization You like Diane and Will? If the show lacked characcterization you wouldn't feel anything for them or even invested in them? So no sorry TGW doesn't lack characterization.

Maybe we have a different concept of what means when someone is "one dimensional". For me, is someone who lacks depth or scope, does he have a conviction? And I am not talking about him as a politician but as a character. To me, it also means when a someone doesn't change or grow during the course of the plot. All I have seen these 5 years is a man who keeps playing the "power play", promises to change, lacks loyalty and gets easily tempted by the female population. How about when Alicia and Peter got separated? No one from the press realised that they were not living under the same roof. He just comes when he is needed and acts the way he is needed to. Again, he is a recurring character so he is not supposed to be written deeply but his decisions impact the plot so....

And no, this show is not strong when it comes writing characters in terms of personality, like some of you have said in this thread, for example, Diane has always been called "the Mentor" and yet she has never mentored anyone. We saw this shaddy side of Will in S2 and then what? And now Alicia who seems to be leaving L&G seeking for independence and the first thing we have is Peter making some phonecalls and winning a client for them.
Characters are presented through their actions and thoughts and they keep acting inconsistently according to what has been presented before, and now, sadly, in most cases is not character development.

But hey, does this mean I love this show any less? No. It's MY point of view, who I see it as a viewer of the show, it's not the absolute truth.

[Kiki17]

Maybe we have a different concept of what means when someone is "one dimensional". For me, is someone who lacks depth or scope, does he have a conviction? To me, it also means when a someone doesn't change or grow during the course of the plot.

Ok so what we know is Peter is a politician, a democract, a man who likes power and abuses it, a man who sinned agaisnt his family. I am shown that Peter is charismatic. I am shown that Peter will do anything to protect his family short of protecting his family from the pain HE inflicts. That he is impulsive, confident, cocky. We see that Peter likes to throw his weight around, we see that he likes to speak of walking an ethical line but easily gives up once it becomes to complicated or it benefits him not to do it the ethical way. These are ALL things we have been shown season after season, thats chracacter development.

I am shown that season 1 Peter doesn't respect Alicia. I am shown that season 2 Peter respects her more, but not fully. I am shown that season 3 Peter starts to view her as a peer. I am shown that season 4 Peter views her as someone who's on his team and falls in love again. I am shown that season 5 Peter has the flaws of season 1 Peter, but also has regret and tremendous respect for his wife. Character development doens't mean change over time.

like some of you have said in this thread, for example, Diane has always been called "the Mentor" and yet she has never mentored anyone.

But thats the point, Diane being a mentor but not mentoring is HER personality.

We saw this shaddy side of Will in S2 and then what?

Only in S2 Did we miss Unorthodox in S1? Grand Jury indictament in S3? Covering the voter tampering rigged in S4?(yes w/ Peter) Voting Diane out in S5? Playing hardball with Alicia in S5?

now Alicia who seems to be leaving L&G seeking for independence and the first thing we have is Peter making some phonecalls and winning a client for them.

Alicia wants to be independent, yes, but FAA has ALWAYS been about the Florrick name. That's why it's the first one listed. There is no way for Alicia to do anything, ever, without it being defined partially by Peter. If the name is gonna work agaisnt her, it should also work for her too, right? Peter wins a client for them that he already lost for them. Peter was a factor here before Alicia took advantage of that connection.

And tell me, how is Alicia supposed to get independence if she has no firm to start?

[EndlessღLove]

Oh and if someone wants to see some great characterization, watch The Hour. Abi Morgan is just brilliant! I knew she would get the Emmy for best writing.

Ok so what we know is Peter is a politician, a democract, a man who likes power and abuses it, a man who sinned agaisnt his family. I am shown that Peter is charismatic. I am shown that Peter will do anything to protect his family short of protecting his family from the pain HE inflicts. That he is impulsive, confident, cocky. We see that Peter likes to throw his weight around, we see that he likes to speak of walking an ethical line but easily gives up once it becomes to complicated or it benefits him not to do it the ethical way. These are ALL things we have been shown season after season, thats chracacter development.

That's not character development, that's describing a character from what you have seen. Want an example? I will tell you about Kurt, who is also a one dimensional character because we don't know anything about him besides Diane.
He is a ballistic expert, a firearms, he is a republican, he has strong beliefs and convictions since he won't testify in a case unless he is sure the person is not guilty. But he put his convictions to a side and married Diane, the woman she loves.... and I could keep describing him but do you see any kind of growth? No, and we don't know, because we, the audience, can see him from only one view.

I am shown that season 1 Peter doesn't respect Alicia. I am shown that season 2 Peter respects her more, but not fully. I am shown that season 3 Peter starts to view her as a peer. I am shown that season 4 Peter views her as someone who's on his team and falls in love again. I am shown that season 5 Peter has the flaws of season 1 Peter, but also has regret and tremendous respect for his wife. Character development doens't mean change over time.

Look, my point exactly. Take Alicia of that equation, what do we get? The same """"charismatic"""" politician who likes playing the power game and is easily tempted by women. You are analyzing him from Alicia's point of view, without her, he doesn't grow character-wise. And I can't say the same thing about other characters such as Will and Diane, I can talk about them without talking about Alicia.
So that's a one-dimensional character.

But thats the point, Diane being a mentor but not mentoring is HER personality.

No, they categorize her as a mentor and she didn't mentor anyone. How can you be a mentor without mentoring?

Only in S2 Did we miss Unorthodox in S1? Grand Jury indictament in S3? Covering the voter tampering rigged in S4?(yes w/ Peter) Voting Diane out in S5? Playing hardball with Alicia in S5?

The Grand Jury is probably not the best example of him being shady And if "voting Diane out" and "playing hardball with Alicia in S5" means he is shady then even Grace has a dark side

Alicia wants to be independent, yes, but FAA has ALWAYS been about the Florrick name.

Then how is Alicia getting independent then? See my point?

And tell me, how is Alicia supposed to get independence if she has no firm to start?

Well they should have thought about that before. Go big or go home. If you scheme and steal clients during work time (and let me tell you, in a really obvious way, especially with the 4th year idiots) you have to face the consequences if someone finds out.

[lockhartgardner]

Relatively new to the board (longtime lurker with a username that's now outdated in that it seems to be choosing a side in the latest plotline when I don't consider myself to be on either "team"), but I wanted to weigh in on this interesting discussion!

Originally Posted by EndlessღLove (View Post) That's not character development, that's describing a character from what you have seen. Want an example? I will tell you about Kurt, who is also a one dimensional character because we don't know anything about him besides Diane. He is a ballistic expert, a firearms, he is a republican, he has strong beliefs and convictions since he won't testify in a case unless he is sure the person is not guilty. But he put his convictions to a side and married Diane, the woman she loves.... and I could keep describing him but do you see any kind of growth? No, and we don't know, because we, the audience, can see him from only one view.

I'm not a Peter fan, nor am I a Peter/Alicia shipper, but I do believe Peter has been developed reasonably well as a character. Perhaps we have different definitions of character development. I think of a well-developed character as a character who may not necessarily change drastically over time, but who feels like a real person, complete with real flaws, hobbies, a clear personality, and a life that continues off-screen. Most importantly, though, I feel that a well-developed character's traits are shown, not told. That's where the difference between Peter and Kurt comes in. We have, mostly, only the superficial level for Kurt. We're given his reputation for only testifying when he believes the defendant innocent, and we're given his political beliefs... and the writers haven't spent much time exploring that character beyond that. But we've seen Peter's flaws in countless plots, and we've seen the same flaws consistently (an example would be his tendency to wield his power over others even when it’s unnecessary and when he’s been asked to stop—see Alicia telling him not to interfere with Zach’s arrest in 4x01) . The writers don't have other characters talk incessantly about why Peter is corrupt or a bad person, and they don't only show one aspect of his life. There are small moments, like Peter getting restless the second he's released on house arrest, that explain so much about who he is as a person. We see the way Peter relates to his family, and how that differs from how he relates to his political supporters, and how that differs from how he relates to his employees. The fact that Peter seems to have a very shallow commitment to change and a very strong commitment to, well, making commitments and promises he then breaks the moment it gets difficult to uphold them doesn't make him a bad character. A bad person, perhaps, but not necessarily a bad character. Peter is an inherently unlikable character (he slept with hookers!!!) who should be the villain of the show, and yet, he's presented as someone multi-faceted; someone human. He’s not the best developed character on the show by any stretch of the imagination, but I find him to be reasonably well-written and well-developed.

Look, my point exactly. Take Alicia of that equation, what do we get? The same """"charismatic"""" politician who likes playing the power game and is easily tempted by women. You are analyzing him from Alicia's point of view, without her, he doesn't grow character-wise. And I can't say the same thing about other characters such as Will and Diane, I can talk about them without talking about Alicia. So that's a one-dimensional character.

Going to have to disagree here as well. What kiki17 gave you was an interpretation of Peter’s development as it relates to Alicia, but I believe he’s been given enough substantial material to discuss his character NOT in relation to Alicia. He’s changed—or stayed the same, which can also be development if the ultimate truth about the character is that he’s someone who can never and will never change—in other aspects as well, and more than that, we’ve seen him in other roles! We’ve seen him as Cary’s boss. We’ve seen him as Grace and Zach’s dad. We’ve seen him as a politician. I feel he’s changed the most with respect to Alicia, but I do think he’s changed in other areas as well. We don’t know what he was like pre-scandal, really, but we do know that, since season 1, he’s made more and more efforts to do things ethically and to see things from other perspectives. He does this when he discusses racial bias with Geneva, or when he acknowledges to Owen that he is, in fact, manipulating him in 4x21. Those are not the most stunning displays of character development, which is why I think the example of how his relationship with Alicia best illustrates the trajectory of his character, but they are displays of character development nevertheless.

No, they categorize her as a mentor and she didn't mentor anyone. How can you be a mentor without mentoring?

Who is ‘they’? Perhaps we’re watching the show differently, but I find that the show very rarely ever tells me how to view a character. In terms of Diane being a mentor, various characters have brought up this idea (which is, to my mind, not at all the same as the show asserting that Diane IS a mentor), and Diane herself has referred to herself as a mentor. The pilot is not the best example of Diane’s characterization, but Will has a line about how Diane mentors other women until they start to compete with her. That’s not true, of course, since the first as last time Diane was written as being jealous of other women was the Pilot, but it still speaks to the point that the idea of Diane-as-Mentor cannot be taken at face-value. Diane is supposedly Alicia’s mentor, but only drops by to mentor when she feels like it, when it’s convenient, or when she needs to mentor Alicia as means to an end. Diane is also supposedly Cary’s mentor even more than she’s Alicia’s, but was her door ever truly open? I could write a lot more here, but for the sake of brevity (which isn’t one of my strong suits, clearly), I’ll stop this line of thinking by echoing what kiki17 said: the way Diane both does and does not mentor the mentees she’s so eager to claim she has speaks volumes about her character.

The Grand Jury is probably not the best example of him being shady And if "voting Diane out" and "playing hardball with Alicia in S5" means he is shady then even Grace has a dark side

I think I’ve lost your point, here. When I read the post Kiki replied to, my understanding was that you were saying that, after season 2, Will was no longer presented as a morally gray character and the writers never followed up on that aspect of his personalty. But I think the Grand Jury is absolutely evidence of Will being presented as a morally gray character, as the entire arc is about Will confronting his past and struggling with the perception that he’s immoral. As for “voting Diane out” and “playing hardball with Alicia in s5,” it’s his methods more than his goals that are shady. Whether or not Will is right or justified is not the issue those examples call to mind for me—it’s how far he’s willing to go to get what he wants. In “Hitting the Fan” we saw him ally with David Lee, who was spreading rumors about Alicia stealing money, and we saw him buy Beth’s testimony (to use the judge’s phrasing). Even if you fully support those choices, there’s an element of shadiness there that’s very consistent with what I’ve seen in Will since season 1.

Then how is Alicia getting independent then? See my point?

Surprise surprise, I have something to say in reply to this as well, LOL. I think it’s one of the tragedies of Alicia’s marriage to Peter that no matter what she does, every move she makes will always be defined by her last name. I can’t think of a way Alicia manages to start a new firm without gaining attention for who she’s married to, unless she divorces Peter, changes her last name, moves to a new city, and waits a few years. That said, I think it’s entirely possible for Alicia to be independent within a situation where she’s viewed as Mrs. Peter Florrick. The Florrick name gives her an advantage in starting her own firm, but once she’s started that firm, what she makes of it is on her (and her partners). No client is going to stick around a firm that’s poorly managed, poorly organized, and doesn’t win cases. From here on out, Alicia has to decide how much she wants to rely on Peter (I think her decision in 5x05 indicates that she’s willing to tie herself to Peter if she absolutely needs to; whether or not she’ll continue to do so remains to be seen), and that’s what I think will ultimately determine how independent she becomes.

Well they should have thought about that before. Go big or go home. If you scheme and steal clients during work time (and let me tell you, in a really obvious way, especially with the 4th year idiots) you have to face the consequences if someone finds out.

I think Kiki might be referring to Alicia’s line that the firm went “down the drain” when they lost ChumHum, which was something Neil Gross had not informed Florrick/Agos of prior to their meeting, and something that had nothing to do with the “consequences of someone finding out.” The way Alicia saw best for facing the consequences and starting her own firm and thus gaining independence involved using Peter’s political clout. This seems like a contradiction, since she’s gaining independence by being dependent on Peter, and it wasn’t a very ethical move, but “go big or go home” is exactly what Alicia did. I’m with you, though, about the fourth-years. What a terrible bunch to be starting a firm with, at least from what I’ve seen so far!

[Kiki17]

Oh damn, basically the post below is all I feel I am glad you posted before I did since it shortens my replies

I think of a well-developed character as a character who may not necessarily change drastically over time, but who feels like a real person, complete with real flaws, hobbies, a clear personality, and a life that continues off-screen. Most importantly, though, I feel that a well-developed character's traits are shown, not told.

Peter is an inherently unlikable character (he slept with hookers!!!) who should be the villain of the show, and yet, he's presented as someone multi-faceted; someone human.

Yes yes exactly thats what I was getting at. Peter flaws have stay mostly consistent but he has developed over the course of the narrative. And yes perhaps me and Eug have different definitions of character development or what one dimensional means.

Diane is supposedly Alicia’s mentor, but only drops by to mentor when she feels like it, when it’s convenient, or when she needs to mentor Alicia as means to an end.

Well yes reminds me of 4.13, she drops in when a lesson needs to be taught. But hasn't been mentoring all along to show her thats not how is done.

it’s his methods more than his goals that are shady.

Yes thank you that was the point I was trying to make.

Then how is Alicia getting independent then? See my point?

I do see your point, but I am with lockhartgardner, Alicia can't change her name, and her face and leave Chicago to be independent? Are you arguing that because of her last name she can never be independent? I don't believe that is true. And yes is what she ultimately do after in the firm, which will determine how independent she is. Like pointed below, he might help her get the client, but she has to PROVE herself, keep the client, win for them. Unfortunately for Alicia her name last name will follow her. So she is suppose to not work for something because she will never get credit for it?

but “go big or go home” is exactly what Alicia did.

Absolutely, She truly went all in. I mean thats the most we have ever seen for Alicia, fighting for something even though she knew it would hurt Will. She knew she was in too deep and went "big" as she should.

What a terrible bunch to be starting a firm with, at least from what I’ve seen so far!

I can agree with this as well Those fourth years are mess, but of course thats going to be the fun part Seeing if Alicia is going to sink or swin, is she gonna take control of this knuckle heads?

[EndlessღLove]

That's where the difference between Peter and Kurt comes in. We have, mostly, only the superficial level for Kurt.

I was using him as a mere example, seriously

. I think of a well-developed character as a character who may not necessarily change drastically over time, but who feels like a real person, complete with real flaws, hobbies, a clear personality, and a life that continues off-screen.

It's not about changing, it's actually about acting and taking decisions according to what has been set before about that character, their background, and I think we can all agree we have seen some OOC plotlines here.

doesn't make him a bad character. A bad person, perhaps, but not necessarily a bad character. Peter is an inherently unlikable character (he slept with hookers!!!) who should be the villain of the show, and yet, he's presented as someone multi-faceted; someone human. He’s not the best developed character on the show by any stretch of the imagination, but I find him to be reasonably well-written and well-developed.

I am not talking about bad or good people, I am talking about Peter as a plain character. I have came across with waaay more complex fictional characters than Peter so I can't help but find him flat. My main problem is how they write characters and now they make them act according to what they need (example: the triangle has driven the characters since S1, basically). Diane is probably the best written character in the show but again, that's how I see her.

Who is ‘they’?

Everyone on the show, pretty much, and even Diane herself.

the way Diane both does and does not mentor the mentees she’s so eager to claim she has speaks volumes about her character.

Diane is a lot of things () and one of the things she is NOT is a mentor, that makes her a worse character? No. I am just stating the fact that they characterise her as a mentor when she is not.

my understanding was that you were saying that, after season 2, Will was no longer presented as a morally gray character and the writers never followed up on that aspect of his personalty. But I think the Grand Jury is absolutely evidence of Will being presented as a morally gray character,

No, they write Will as someone shady only when they need to, nothing about his "dark side" looks clear to me, seems like something they came up with somewhere in S2, then dropped the ball, took it again, etc etc etc.

I think it’s one of the tragedies of Alicia’s marriage to Peter that no matter what she does, every move she makes will always be defined by her last name.

I honestly don't care what "resources" she or FAA use to win cases or succeed as a business, all I want is for people to stop calling it "independence" because clearly, it's not. Again they are trying to make it look like character growth when it's not and to me Alicia looks like she has no clue of what she wants (I will give her credit for leaving the firm, even if they find out and she didn't get the chance to tell Will and Diane and oh boy I would have loved to see her trying). If she really knew what she wanted and if she really wanted to commit with Peter he would be renewing her vows already or living with Peter under the same roof. The Kings said the triangle was over when I actually think they just brought it to the next level

He’s changed—or stayed the same, which can also be development if the ultimate truth about the character is that he’s someone who can never and will never change—in other aspects as well, and more than that, we’ve seen him in other roles! We’ve seen him as Cary’s boss. We’ve seen him as Grace and Zach’s dad. We’ve seen him as a politician. I feel he’s changed the most with respect to Alicia, but I do think he’s changed in other areas as well.

That's how you see it but what I see tbh is a corrupt politician who was convicted, then somehow won the SA elections and then even more mysteriously won Governorship. But of course as soon as Diane wants to become a judge she has to become mother Teresa Yeah no, that's how "complex" Peter's storyline is.



Look, they have moved the characters up and down, back and forth and the alliances keep flip flopping but in the end of the day I still feel Alicia (who the show is supposed to be about) doesn't know what she wants


ETA: Nooo I am so sorry, I thought I was editing my post because is acting weird and this part wasn't showed and now I made a new post, great

[lockhartgardner]

Originally Posted by EndlessღLove (View Post) I was using him as a mere example, seriously

As was I. You compared Peter to Kurt and said they were both one dimensional characters. So, using Kurt as a point of reference, I attempted to demonstrate why Peter's characterization is far, far beyond Kurt's. I used Kurt as an example of why I think showing is more important than telling, and built on that to explain why I think we've been shown a decent characterization for Peter.

It's not about changing, it's actually about acting and taking decisions according to what has been set before about that character, their background, and I think we can all agree we have seen some OOC plotlines here.

If you take another look at my post, you'll find that I said the exact same thing-- that character development has everything to do with consistency and definition, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with change. I mentioned this definition of character development in response to your claim that Kurt, your example of a one-dimensional character, was one-dimensional because you didn't see any sort of "growth." I'm also not sure what these OOC plotlines you're referring to are. I listed several examples of Peter behaving consistently in my post; can you provide some significant examples of these OOC plots?

I am not talking about bad or good people, I am talking about Peter as a plain character. I have came across with waaay more complex fictional characters than Peter so I can't help but find him flat. My main problem is how they write characters and now they make them act according to what they need (example: the triangle has driven the characters since S1, basically). Diane is probably the best written character in the show but again, that's how I see her.

And neither am I. When I wrote that sentence, I had just given an example of one of Peter's flaws we've seen time and time again over the seasons, a flaw that may make him seem a bit static. I also wanted to make it clear that my goal here is not to defend Peter's actions, hence calling him a (potentially) bad person. I'm glad you watch shows with characters better than Peter. I do, too. I don't find Peter to be an extraordinarily well-developed character, but I also don't find him "flat." I am not sure what you mean about the triangle driving the characters since season 1. I have plenty of complaints about the triangle and do agree that it has, at times impeded the development of the characters involved, but I feel that, overall, the characters drive the triangle... not the other way around.

Everyone on the show, pretty much, and even Diane herself.

People on the show frequently call Alicia "Saint Alicia." Does that mean Alicia should be held to that standard by the viewers? That is what you are implying by saying that because Diane is referred to within the show as a mentor, she must necessarily act like a mentor and be a good mentor. By the way, we have seen Diane mentor several times, particularly with Cary throughout season 1, in season 2 when she approached him to join the firm she was going to start, with Caitlin in season 3, with Alicia in the Pilot, in the episode The Seven Day Rule... the list goes on. There's a reason Diane is consistently referred to as a mentor, and it is that Diane consistently thinks of herself as a mentor.

Diane is a lot of things () and one of the things she is NOT is a mentor, that makes her a worse character? No. I am just stating the fact that they characterise her as a mentor when she is not.

No, that doesn't make her a worse character. That's not what I said. If anything, the idea that Diane views herself in a way that's different from how she acts makes her a BETTER character, because the show has established both her thoughts and her actions and how they differ. Are you saying that Diane should not claim to be a mentor when she is not? Are you taking issue with the fact that Diane likes to think of herself as a mentor but isn't? Are you implying that the writers should write Diane as a great mentor simply because Diane calls herself a mentor? That sounds like the opposite of good characterization to me. I much prefer the contradiction and complexity. More realistic. More three-dimensional.

No, they write Will as someone shady only when they need to, nothing about his "dark side" looks clear to me, seems like something they came up with somewhere in S2, then dropped the ball, took it again, etc etc etc.

Perhaps this is because the circumstances don't always call for shady actions? Why would Will do something shady if he had a case he could win without being shady? There is no doubt in my mind that if an issue arose in the most clean and ethical case, Will would switch from acting ethically to doing something shady in a heartbeat. That aspect of his personality doesn't simply go away; it goes on the backburner. I'd also dispute the idea that they suddenly made Will shady in season 2. The entire episode Unorthodox, the seventh episode of the series, touches upon Will as someone who's willing to be unethical. I wouldn't be surprised if there are references even earlier in the series. Another example from s1, though I'm sure there are a plethora of others, is the end of "Running," where Will tells Alicia that it's their job to make sure the client-- who is guilty-- not only keeps her freedom but accepts the damages she's receiving as the widow of the husband she had killed.

I honestly don't care what "resources" she or FAA use to win cases or succeed as a business, all I want is for people to stop calling it "independence" because clearly, it's not. Again they are trying to make it look like character growth when it's not and to me Alicia looks like she has no clue of what she wants (I will give her credit for leaving the firm, even if they find out and she didn't get the chance to tell Will and Diane and oh boy I would have loved to see her trying). If she really knew what she wanted and if she really wanted to commit with Peter he would be renewing her vows already or living with Peter under the same roof. The Kings said the triangle was over when I actually think they just brought it to the next level

You introduced the word "independence." You asserted that this was a move Alicia made for "independence." That is not my phrasing. I believe this CAN be a move towards independence, depending on where Alicia goes from here, and I believe that independence is something Alicia wants. The reason the idea of independence is in this conversation, however, is because you introduced it. I disagree with you about Alicia not knowing what she wants. I think she's just more certain about some aspects of her life than she is about others, and I think it's difficult to assess current plotlines that are almost certainly building to something.

That's how you see it but what I see tbh is a corrupt politician who was convicted, then somehow won the SA elections and then even more mysteriously won Governorship. But of course as soon as Diane wants to become a judge she has to become mother Teresa Yeah no, that's how "complex" Peter's storyline is.

Technically, Peter is an unethical politician who was convicted of crimes he did not commit, and was then retried and found not guilty. That could have something to do with the public support he received in the SA election, as could Eli's contributions to his campaign and Alicia's willingness to publicly support him. But in any event, the specifics of how the public viewed Peter and why people voted the way they did is irrelevant to a discussion of Peter's character development, as is the alleged double standard you're raising regarding Peter and Diane.

[Bye11]

I think both sides of the argument have their merits here. While I agree that Peter is a well-enough rounded character, I believe that his actions in the last episode seriously hindered his third dimension.

Peter starts as a villain and for a supporting character in a long-term story that's probably one of the best places to start. First of all, the character is held to a much lower standard and can get away with a lot of actions that the hero/heroine of the story would be heavily criticized for. Moreover, narrative rules usually imply either a path towards super-villany whose road is often entertaining and filled with quotables or some kind of arc of redemption which in the right hand can be one of the most powerful storylines.

The writers chose redemption with Peter which doesn't mean that the character has to abandon all his flaws and proceed into the road of Sainthood. It means that the character gets flushed out and in watching him be anything other than a villain we get to understand him better and, in Peter's case, to have a glimpse of what it is that made him so successful and loved in certain circles. The best way to go about this redemption story is to associate to the character in question a loved character or to surround him with people that are behaving worse than him at that moment. Those are simple but effective tricks. And indeed, he started being a better husband and it actually worked for me in Season 4, when I wanted for him to win the debate with Maddie (recovering Eli in the process) and when he respected Diane more and more, enough to ask her to fill the Supreme Court Seat, even though she wasn't an obvious choice. It showed Peter as a politician that can be better than others (but I still am peeved about not knowing exactly what he stands for) and can care for the future of the state and not just for power-games.

Last episode, suddenly he was stripped of almost all his redemption process all at once. Not only he thinks he can use the state as a personal realm to favor his wife (as I said before in this thread the threat was ridiculous in the context but a threat like that in any kind of industry means a serious loss of jobs. It isn't something that can be taken lightly), but he is also back to projecting that macho-aura of lashing out against anyone who has harmed anything that he cares about, without valid reasons or without the best interest of the people of Illinois at heart. That means he was suddenly back to the politician douche that thinks he can get away with anything while others need to pay for the minimal slight and that's a 2-D type if I ever saw one.

It's great for me because I can go back to the natural state of hating him without second thoughts or reserves but it feels like a waste of an arc that has been built for many episodes. And it certainly does not do any favor to Peter as a person, but mainly as a character.

Originally Posted by lockhartgardner (View Post) Surprise surprise, I have something to say in reply to this as well, LOL. I think it’s one of the tragedies of Alicia’s marriage to Peter that no matter what she does, every move she makes will always be defined by her last name. I can’t think of a way Alicia manages to start a new firm without gaining attention for who she’s married to, unless she divorces Peter, changes her last name, moves to a new city, and waits a few years. That said, I think it’s entirely possible for Alicia to be independent within a situation where she’s viewed as Mrs. Peter Florrick. The Florrick name gives her an advantage in starting her own firm, but once she’s started that firm, what she makes of it is on her (and her partners). No client is going to stick around a firm that’s poorly managed, poorly organized, and doesn’t win cases. From here on out, Alicia has to decide how much she wants to rely on Peter (I think her decision in 5x05 indicates that she’s willing to tie herself to Peter if she absolutely needs to; whether or not she’ll continue to do so remains to be seen), and that’s what I think will ultimately determine how independent she becomes.

I don't agree with the possibility of her gaining an independence within her being Mrs. Florrick, or to rephrase better I don't think that with this move she's gaining any relative independence compared to what she would have had as a managing partner at Lockhart/Gardner. I've already debated this point with Kiki after episode 1 and I'll try not to be long. I agree that her surname comes with strings, so real independence is almost impossible (save for some exceptions). The fact that she has control on how to manage the firm is, in my opinion, naive, considering all those fourth years that can easily outvote her. She can have more power and influence if she starts waving around the fact that her husband's ethical shadyness is what led to the existence of the firm in the first place or that it can win them new clients but that is the exploiting the dependence, rather than independence within the dependence. She's no better off than she would be at L/G and in the meantime she's made herself complicit in her husband's lack of ethics.

[replendentmiasma]

According to TV line's renewal scorecard - the possibility of a 6th season is just "a safe bet" for now. I don't know whether to be reassured or cry in misery.

[EndlessღLove]

I think this conversation is starting to lose sense and I don't know who I am replying at this point (Kiki, Bye11 or lockhartgardner) so I am just going to reply everything without quoting you because it's making me uncomfortable


What I basically said is a) the show lacks characterization and b) that Peter is a plain character. Whether Will is shady or not or whether Diane is a mentor or not (seriously that line of conversation is getting pretty ridiculous where I think we are both saying the same ) I think we all know this show has had some plotholes and some storylines that the Kings adressed once and then totally dropped them, impacting the characters' behaviors and making them act sometimes OOC.

Like I said before, they move the characters back and forth and up and down but in the end of the day all I see is Alicia as lost as usual. Sure, she is "kicking asses" now or "being a warrior princess" or whatever you want to call if but she was sure of her decision and she chose Peter and the triangle is over, why are the press, Jules and Kings keep talking about Alicia and Will as sexy enemies and temptation and blah blah? Why Peter and Alicia are not even thinking about living together again? Shouldn't she show any kind of excitement about the vows renewal? Why did she flirt with Will two episodes ago?
And here we have the triangle again. She is the lead character and she should be the most strong determined character (I don't mean she should be strong are determined, I mean we should be sure of what she wants or is looking for after five seasons and she doesn't even know what she wants herself.)

As for Peter and his political career, in real life is more complicated than that. Someone who was convicted and got involved in a scandal hardly gets re-elected and let's not even think about becoming a Governor. That's how he lacks deepness, they don't explore that, they just made him win and that's it. And he is a recurring character after all and this show is not about politics so I think we are only seeing one dimension of him as a character. Call him a two dimensions character if you think it suits him but I really think he is not
Also, it's still unsure whether Peter was or not guilty for his crimes. He was found not guilty but it doesn't mean he is after all. They have adressed he might have been involved in something... not so legal.

and also this:

(but I still am peeved about not knowing exactly what he stands for)

[StarryFlower]

OK so I'm not going to directly reply to anyone either as there's just too much! I think one of the main problems with Peter is that the writers are tied down by Chris Noth's schedule, and so they don't want to "waste" the time they have with him on scenes that don't further the plot. Therefore, they don't seem to have included a lot of family scenes recently. Most of his scenes for the past two seasons seem to have involved his work, sex with Alicia that hasn't seemed particularly loving, or him doing something corrupt. Yes I know there are a few exceptions like the dance in 4x18, but mostly, all of his stuff falls into those categories. He wasn't there on Zach's 18th and then when he met with Alicia other times in that episode they didn't even mention about their eldest child now being an adult (at least I think not, correct me if I'm wrong) Instead of that sex scene in the most recent episode, which didn't seem particularly loving, it would have been better if he'd arrived at the apartment, talked to Alicia for a bit without the flirting and then spent some time with his children. It would have made them all seem more like a family, instead of which they disappeared to the bedroom for a quickie. I have no idea if they're a real couple or not. They say they're living together but are they? Alicia says she loves him but does she? Peter's still incredibly tempted by women and removes attractive women from his vicinity. I don't think Peter's a one-dimensional character, I just think he seems a bit limited with a lot of the same motivations as he had in season 1, plus I still have no idea what the dynamic is between him and Alicia at the moment.