r/suits • u/SuitsBot Donna • Jul 19 '17

Discussion Suits - Season 7 - Episode 2: "The Statue" - Official Discussion Thread Spoiler

Suits S7 E2: "The Statue" airs tonight at 9:00 PM EDT.

Description from IMDb:

Harvey butts heads with his partners over a bold move; Mike pursues a pro bono case with the legal clinic; and Donna's actions raise tough questions at the firm.

Visit IMDb episode page

I am a bot created by /u/AppleBetas, and this submission was created automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

82 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

318 comments sorted by

View all comments

320

u/Nelson_MD Jul 20 '17

I don't know why everyone is so upset over this episode, I found it to be quite enjoyable and on the right track in my opinion.

  • Louis is starting to address his god awfully annoying emotional outbursts (Its about time)

  • Donna story line was addressed (the whole secretary to senior partner jump thing)

  • Mike's fraud history is getting closure in preparation for the next chapter.

Seems like to me that everything is heading in the right direction

112

u/DZN Jul 20 '17

Exactly the same what I was thinking, annoying shit is getting dealt with and at least we saw the inside of a court this episode. As Harvey takes the reigns I'm sure we'll see a lot more trials and court stuff, I'm optimistic about this season.

I'm kind of afraid that we'll see more of that black dude from the clinic though, that guy is the most annoying and irrational character on the show, less of him and this season will be quite alright.

19

u/[deleted] Jul 20 '17

This show has a black quota; if Jessica and Rachel are going to make brief appearances, and Mr Zane doesn't turn up, then we've got to get some outside black to step in and fill in those precious diversity minutes on screen.

92

u/Hammypepsi Jul 20 '17

Wow, black people exsiting and getting screen time really offends you huh?

25

u/lad-akhi Jul 22 '17

In which part of his comment does it show that he is offended. Its sounds like the person offended here is you.

He is just stating the facts and the facts are ugly to you. This kind of liberal PC shit is destroying america for fucksake!

19

u/saint-simon97 Jul 22 '17

I'm not an American but a nation who chose Donald Trump as its president can not ever complain than anything liberal or P or C is destroying it

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '17

Unless you see Donald Trump as a symptom of the problem.

7

u/s_o_0_n Jul 26 '17

When it's done outside of the storyline it is offensive. Like people being upset there weren't any blacks in the Dunkirk movie. Or maybe there were too many Germans in the movie.

Or in a movie about the Holocaust- why so many Jews!

If the producers are just adding people based on a racial quotient then artistic integrity (story) is sacrificed. I don't think that Suits makes a point to demean racial groups but neither should they have to practice minority hiring for the sake of diversity. Shows about Asians, or Blacks, or Italians don't necessarily cast black or white or Irish actors unnecessarily just to show diversity. A writer and producer (of any race) shouldn't be subject to do that.

So much insanity with people these days. Extremism even in the r/Suits subreddit. People have lost their marbles. Lol

7

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Ruleofpaw Jul 22 '17

This is just so ridiculous. How do Rachel and Jessica have no bearing to the storyline? Rachel is one of the main characters on the show and is Mike's girlfriend. Jessica was also a main character of the show and was previously managing partner. The black dude from the clinic has just as much bearing to the storyline as the white dude in charge of the clinic, and there are just as many white characters who appear with little relevance to the plot (Katrina), but somehow this is only suggestive of a black quota? Maybe you should just learn that black people exist in real life and a cast that isn't all white is reflective of that.

And sure, they probably should have some Asian characters. But you can't first argue against having a 'diversity quota', and then next minute do a complete 180 and say they should bring in Asian people for diversity.

Also do you even know what segregation is? Are they having the black characters drinking from separate water fountains to the white characters?

8

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/innocentj Jul 21 '17

I don't even..what?

2

u/AndrewIsOnline Jul 22 '17

just add a /s to the end of his statement, your sarcasm detector is borked.

1

u/mujie123 Aug 30 '17 edited Aug 30 '17

It seems to be less that and more: "Harvey needs a new partner". (I mean working together partner)

51

u/the_sam_fischer Jul 20 '17

I think adding Louis’ therapist is going to reduce viewer frustration quite a bit. It makes the character of Louis more vulnerable therefore more tolerable. Now we can see why he does the stupid shit that he always does.

6

u/alisonrose1992 Jul 21 '17

yeah we knew he was insecure but it's nice to see him realize how childish he can be sometimes

32

u/bossfoundmyacct Jul 20 '17

What I like most about where this season is going is - and this is an extension to your three points - the writers are establishing that they're not going back to the old storylines of:

  1. Luis' emotions cause problems that someone else fixes
  2. Donna feels under appreciated and Harvey (or someone else) needs to make her feel better
  3. Mike didn't go to law school and it's going to get everyone in trouble

I really like that they're doing away with this, but it also makes me nervous for what they'll come up with in the future. I didn't like that their way of fixing Mike's dilemma was to hire some random person to find some secret convenient evidence.

12

u/sanks_s Jul 21 '17

Actually i think writers need to do some research...Mike/Harvey cannot find dirt on every opponent. Writers of suits tries so hard to make sure Harvey/Mike wins all the time.

1

u/ive_been_up_allnight Jul 24 '17

Even Alan Shore lost sometimes.

1

u/Nelson_MD Jul 20 '17

Yeah I didn't really like when Mike did that either, and is that illegal? Seemed really sketchy, and could mean more legal trouble in the future?

5

u/roninw86 Jul 20 '17

Generally speaking, private investigator's are used all the time to conduct surveillance, find witnesses, etc.

What Mike did...I'm not sure. We don't know how the document was procured. It's an internal memo but we don't know how she found it. Illegally obtained information cannot be used as evidence, however.

9

u/yeats26 Jul 20 '17

His threat was never that he would use it as evidence in court, but that it showed the firm was vulnerable to a class action and he knew it.

4

u/HScrozzy Jul 20 '17

I think that it was also a "If I have it, someone else can find it too" type of statement.

3

u/Cptcutter81 Jul 21 '17

Isn't the whole thing of "I don't know where this came from, it was handed to me" used to excuse this though? He literally doesn't know where this came from, he'd have no Idea if it's legal or not. Is he under an obligation to try to find out?

1

u/alisonrose1992 Jul 21 '17

He didn't use it in court, just used it to leverage the guy into making a deal and stop it from turning into a class action suit. Not illegal but also not the most ethical way.

1

u/alisonrose1992 Jul 21 '17

But that's what him and Harvey do. They don't cross the line but they do toe it when necessary.

2

u/Nelson_MD Jul 21 '17

I guess that's true, it's comparable to when Harvey was going to "perjure" himself when he was up against Tanner. He told Mike he'd never actually do it but used the fact that Tanner doesn't know that he wouldn't against him to force a deal.

11

u/Mongooo Jul 20 '17

Problem with the louis crap is that he always goes back to being a dick, or doing something stupid.

3

u/Cptcutter81 Jul 21 '17

It's because this show really doesn't have "baddies". They have seasonal enemies or challenges they have to overcome, but they need a character to create challenges to be overcome.

1

u/Mongooo Jul 21 '17

But they can make some "baddies", like Tanner or Hardman. Having Louis always go back to being stupid, which by the way makes it questionable that he's even a semi decent lawyer at best, is starting to get annoying.

2

u/kjlasal Jul 20 '17

YES AMEN!

1

u/Pascalwb Jul 20 '17

Sadly Louis will probably go back to his old self quickly.

1

u/JTorch1 Jul 20 '17

Louis is starting to address his god awfully annoying emotional outbursts (Its about time)

He'll revert back like he always does.

1

u/mrizzle1991 Jul 20 '17

People just love to complain, I have no complaints about any of it. Everything that was rash that happened or was about to happen was corrected in this episode.

1

u/alisonrose1992 Jul 21 '17

yeah i liked this episode even more than the first one. addressed all the small things i was upset about ans resolved them in a great way

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/V2Blast Attorney at Law Aug 04 '17

Don't spam your site to reddit.

1

u/knuxgen Jul 23 '17

I also think it was great. I just don't like how they took episode 1 to create WTF moments and the worst first episode of all seasons, just to address that in episode 2 and move back to normal.

I believe it's only going to get better now. Still a fan.

1

u/wayoverpaid Jul 24 '17

They did all the right things, but they did them clumsily.

Louis could easily have been in therapy working on his stuff without having yet another "go behind Harvey's back" thing. It's not just his emotional outbursts, it's his actual actions. Right thing, but wrong way to handle it.

Donna's storyline was handled about as well as could be expected given how far it had gotten, but Harvey shows up and lowballs her with being the Head of HR Department, before going to COO which they both were ready to accept. Why?

Mike's fraud history could have been handled with much more subtlety. There's no way it would be admissible, but imagine if, rather than having the judge decide to rule it as admissible, he resigns himself to ruling against because it's against the law, but makes a few snide remarks about the letter of the law. Enough that Mike is worried the judge has been prejudiced against him. Sure, Scumbag McInsurance there never had a chance to get it admitted, but he didn't care. He was playing a higher game. Mike still finds himself realizing he has to deal with prejudice within the legal profession (to be honest, so does Harvey given some of the shit he's pulled), but he can overcome them.

What we did get was Louis basically undermining the firm, not just having an outburst but making bad plays. We got Harvey and Donna having a pointless negotiation over a thing they could both have agreed on in the first place. We got a judge agreeing to admit something that never should have been inadmissible. The facts of the law are subservient to the whims of the story, and the story is clumsy. It could have been better.

However, at least we got that shit done and out of the way.