Talk:Suits (American TV series)/Archive 1

New title
For anyone working this page, you might want to keep an eye out for some sources; looks like USA changed the title to Suits (debuting June 23, 2011). KnownAlias   contact   21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind...I got it.  KnownAlias    contact   00:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cast - other lawyers?
I think there should be a section for the other lawyers who appear aside from kyle durant. I mean there have been 4 other lawyers gary cole's character, the assistant us attorney in the gary cole episode, tanner by eric close and vivian tanaka (sp?) what are you thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.151.90 (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They're just minor one-time characters. If we did this for every character, the article would quickly be 300 pages long.  If they begin to recur on the series though, it will be fine.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * i think its time to ad tanner since that show last season did well and he is returning for 2nd week of july's episode. I can see him guest starring in more episodes of the future now that the closer is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.103.77 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardman vs. Harden
Obviously some people feel very strongly about this, judging by the multiple all-caps edit summaries. Most independent sources say "Hardman"; the official website says "Harden" in multiple places. An anonymous editor (24.103.154.194) loudly claims (as of yet unverified) that the name of the firm can be seen on a wall as saying "Harden" (if 24.103.154.194 sees this, would you mind telling us what episode and at what time this can be seen?), and I'm getting tired of seeing this pop up on my watchlist. Multiple Google searches reveal nothing new. I really don't feel like watching the entire first season again to go over this, but I may do just that. Does anyone have any insight into this? Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In Season 1 Episode 5 (Bail Out) at about 18:36, Trevor looks at Mike's business card which clearly reads Pearson Hardman. I don't recall seeing any walls that say "Harden" but there are several shots of his business card in this episode that all show "Hardman". Sillybulanston (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * funny you mentioned this i had seen a few inital episodes that say harden. and then later episodes say hardman. I looked further into google searches and found that intially it was called harden, but when they re-did certain scenes and they forgot to edit it out for the correction (SCRIPT GIRL'S FAULT FYI). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.103.77 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Add a "This section contains spoilers"
There is a lack of this warning in many places of this page, I stopped reading after discovering things I still didn't saw.

For example, in :


 * Overview
 * Recurring cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.166.173.151 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPOILERS, spoilers are not removed. Per WP:NODISCLAIMERS, disclaimers are not added. And I think one would expect spoilers in overview and cast sections, especially since those sections usually cover plot and character descriptions. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Managing partner/founding partner
Okay going to sort this out right now. Jessica was an associate at the firm many years ago before the start of the series and before the rewind episode. Hardman a founding partner of the original law firm, chose jessica as his right hand "man". Together they CROSSED out the other names of the lawfirm changing to Pearson Hardman. Hardman was founding partner of both firms. Jessica was just added on to an already existing law firm. This does happen in the real law firms over years, feeling they need to wipe out the old blood of the names (some firm keep 100 year names others change names over 20-30 years) therefore jessica is NOT a founding partner just a managing based upon VOTES and foricng daniel out. All of this info was revealed by jessica and danile over the 10 epoisodes of season 2.
 * I would like to point out that what you say is a strong possibility, could be true, and makes total sense. But parts of that are not explicitly stated within the series, for example, Pearson Hardman being an old firm with a new name. Though I am not the authority on how these things go, there is another possibility (one that I am leaning toward). Hardman could have mentored Jessica when the two of them were working at a different firm. He plucked her out of that firm's bullpen and with other attorney's they created a new firm. Then they crossed the other names off the letterhead to narrow it down to only two founding partners, Jessica and Daniel. Jessica also wrote the bylaws. Though I am not too familiar with bylaws, the Wikipedia article gives me the impression that they are written when a company is founded and are difficult to amend afterward. It would make sense that when Jessica says she wrote them, she was the one who originally wrote them when the firm was first started. Of course, nothing at this point is explicitly stated in the series except for: 1) Hardman plucked Jessica out of a bullpen (not sure which one) and then mentored her much like she did Harvey; 2) Jessica's and Hardman's names are on the door; 3) there were other founding partners; 4) Jessica is definitely managing (it says it on her door); 5) Hardman definitely founded (it said it on his door). Some reliable reviews and interviews state that Jessica is founding partner: Zap2it says "Jessica Pearson (Gina Torres), the founding partner of Mike's law firm"; Slant Magazine with "founding partner Jessica Pearson"; The Deadbolt, "much more for Jessica since her name is out front as a founding partner."; Screen Spy says "Jessica Pearson, co-founder of Pearson-Hardman"; Blast Magazine says "the firm’s co-founder, Jessica Pearson"; and BuddyTV with a much more ambiguous "Five years earlier, Jessica and Harvey had forced the firm's other founding partner out" which could possibly imply that Harvey could also be founding partner, but we definitively know that is not true and that leaves Jessica, the remaining subject in the sentence, as the founding partner. But then all the reviewers could be wrong, I know. For a more "voice of God" source, USA Network weighs in on its Episode Guide entry for "She Knows": "Mike fears the worst when he is summoned to dinner with Jessica, but it's Harvey who learns the truth from the founding partner after she has wined..." The sentence clearly states that Jessica is a founding partner. That, with the possible scenario I outline above that is consistent with what is stated in the series, points to Jessica having co-founded Pearson Hardman. However, USA Network is not as "voice of God" as I would like because it has referred to the firm as Pearson Harden in entries written while season one was airing and it mostly refers to Jessica as managing partner, but the site seems to be more accurate since the premiere of season two. ~Cheers,  Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Finally this can be settled. As seen In Suits episode Rewind, Jessica IS one of the Founding Partners. This can been verified in the scene where Louis goes to see Jessica in her old office and it says 'Jessica Pearson Founding Partner' on the door. Now, due to the reflection on the glass during the scene it is impossible to see her title clearly although the 2-3 seconds while Louis is entering the office uncovers the reflection and then allows us to see her full title of Founding Partner. Cheers Thasharvey  Thasharvey  03:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Major spoiler in first paragraph
Revealing that Pearson Hardman becomes Pearson Darby at the end of Season 2 is a major spoiler. I don't know if Wikipedia assumes everyone who reads articles on TV shows would only do so if they are up to date on the most recent episodes, but if I were watching Season 2, that would be a huge thing to give away. I recommend that "(Pearson Darby since the end of Season 2)" be removed from the very first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.31.132 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, some people (my wife and I included) want to know as much as possible as soon as possible so we can appreciate watching the show. Some people watch movies many times, not us. So what is the best answer? I would vote to have a "Spoiler" note somewhere for purists, like our daughters. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's policy on Spoilers. You wills see that spoilers are considered no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers and also that it is not practice to include spoiler warnings. -- MisterShiney    ✉    13:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"Impersonate"
NEW: It is now crystal clear that Ross never took the bar and was never admitted (what the lay public mistakenly calls "licensed").

I'd like to start a new section on the various legal improprieties involved among all the characters. Would this be welcome? Where should I put it? Sherwood V. Walker (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Sherwood V. Walker

According to previews for the show, Ross has actually passed the bar exam (some states, including NY, IIRC, allow you to sit for the bar even if you don't have a law degree). So it seems unlikely that he is "impersonating" a lawyer; it appears more likely that he is simply very green (having tons of book knowledge, but no practical knowledge of how law is actually practiced). Samer (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The site page on USA says he meets his future partner by slipping into the job interview simply to escape a drug deal gone bad, and the official press release for the show indicates that he's a college drop out and is trying to hide his secret from the firm. Sounds like a faker without credentials to me, making "impersonator" a pretty fair assessment of his character.  KnownAlias  X   15:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the flip side, the previews also show him able to quote legal texts from memory—which suggests that, for some reason, he has read those books—and able to game the show's version of the LSAT, so I'll buy the "faker" part, but I'm definitely reserving judgment on the "without credentials" part. Samer (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Credentials would be the necessary licences and documentation to legally practice law, which would seem to be lacking for him to have to hide his status from his new employer. Don't confuse "credentials" with "skills" (unless I'm confusing your interpretation).  KnownAlias  X   16:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that a Bar Exam does not a lawyer make...Law school is required for a license to practice law except in very certain circumstances. This may be a case of Reading to the Bar, or it may simply be artistic license on the writer's part. Either way, it's not necessary to change the article as of yet until the pilot airs and we find out. ~  PH  DrillSergeant ... §  00:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression of that from the pilot was that he hadn't sat it under his own name. His job at the start of the pilot seems to be sitting tests for other people and he says he sat the bar for a bet. He clearly hasn't got a bar exam certificate he can wave at people --86.165.78.215 (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression from the series so far is that he has passed the bar for himself to win a bet. Also that he has at least one year of law school study but was expelled at some point from his university (that was not Harvard). Not sure if it's possible to pass the Bar without a degree though.(128.8.127.167 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC))
 * practicing law in certain states CA and NY actually doesnt require ONE to have a LAW SCHOOL Degree CA states you do not need to go to law school and practice legally. IN NY the rule is ONE year of law school before you can sit and yes if you pass you can practice. I live in NY and there are lawyers where I have met who passed bar after multiple tries and do not have a law degree but have had 1 year of law school. UPSTATE NY you will find these lawyers.
 * Streangely the show never states the Mike is licensed to practice law.  They seem to think that a law degree makes you a lawyer.  Not true in any state.  A law degree is in most states a prerequisite to becoming licensed.  But it does not make you licensed.  You can have a law degree and still never be licensed in any state.  The show briefly mentions the bar exam, but never gets into that the bar is the test to get licensed or ever mention that an attorney needs a license.  This is the biggest hole in the series.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.59.87 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mike Ross is a fraud. He was never admitted to the bar. And I'm not going to let him get away with it!" is one of the teasers for the new fall'2013 season. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Travis Tanner
can someone please clear up if Tanner is working for the same law firm when he moves to NYC. Or if he joined a new firm in NYC. Thanks 199.246.39.222 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Excessively detailed plot summaries
Both the season 2 and season 3 summaries in the "Plot" section, as well as the cast list, contain way too much detail about the plot. This is not the Suits wiki; this page does not need a sentence about every single thing that happens in the show. Especially for the cast list: each character should have no more than two or three sentences about them, especially because there's already a separate "characters in Suits" article. This page needs some major revision. --V2Blast (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...And apparently has just removed all my Template:Plot templates without saying why. I'm going to re-add them, given that the plot summaries are not so much summaries as detailed explanations of nearly everything that happens in the show (and also because the character list in particular already has its own page anyway). --V2Blast (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I liked seeing everything right here. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

More pictures of the cast
I would like to see more pictures of the great cast. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Thanks! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception...
...a section this article needs dearly provided it is written and formatted by people who have experience with this. Karin Anker (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

A better plotline
... would have 'knowledge that Mike was involved in something dubious college-wise' spreading outwards/creating ripples and having an impact on developments within the firm and possibly interacting with the earlier dubious financial activities by Daniel Hardman with 'occasional nods at Watergate.' Louis Litt then has the role of 'discovering the truth' (and finding other things as well). 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The above is, admittedly, probably easier to do well in a book format than a TV presentation.

There seems to be rather more interacting between the characters (often discussing characters not present) than actual lawyering... and an organisation with that much tension between higher-ups would probably be inherently unstable. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Time slot
The usa network web site says the new season starts June 10 (today).

http://www.usanetwork.com/suits

The article says this

Suits was renewed for a fourth season, with the first episode of Season 4 airing on 11/06/14.

Jokem (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Donna's middle name
Although there are multiple internet sources from the last few years saying Donna's middle name is Evelyn, this was never spoken on the show. It is clear now from Season 4 episode "Pound of Flesh" that her middle name is Roberta, as confirmed by this interview with Aaron Korsh Melcous (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot/character descriptions are still too long (and completely uncited)
This article needs some major revision.

I recommend that everyone editing this article take a look at MOS:TV. In particular, given that there's a List of Suits episodes article, the part about the plot (WP:TVPLOT) is relevant; it states the following:


 * For articles on the main work, this section should be brief, only discussing the important plot elements for each season (though, if the article is becoming long it may be best to trim it to over-arching plots for the entire series) that steered the course of characters lives, or the course of the show.

It's also worth reading the cast section (WP:TVCAST), which states that "Not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed", and this is especially true when there is already a separate page for the List of Suits characters. Given that there is already a separate page for the characters, only the main characters (and maybe the *major* recurring characters) should be listed on this page (and again, no, the actors do not need their pictures on this page, especially if they already have a picture on their own article).

The lead paragraph of the article may need some work as well (as per the WP:TVLEAD section); it seems to summarize the plot of the series premiere rather than providing context for the rest of the article.

...And, as someone else mentioned, this article could use a "Reception" section (see WP:TVRECEPTION for a guide), which it is completely missing at the moment. It may also be beneficial to move the "Development and production" section further up the page. --V2Blast (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Structure of the article
I would be keen to get some interaction from other editors on this. Some changes have been made and reverted by User: PsychopathicAssassin and myself and I would like to see if we can establish some consensus here. Apart from some minor spelling and grammar issues, which I will make without discussion, my main concerns are as follows:
 * 1. My reading of WP:MOSTV is that the article should follow a fairly simple structure of Infobox, Image, Lead, Plot, Characters/Cast, Background/Production, etc. What this article currently has after the lead is production information, followed by Episodes (which includes both plot and broadcast/media information). I think the plot/episode information and cast should come first after the lead, and that the information on what I call broadcast/media (air dates and DVD availability of each season) does not belong in the same section as the plot summary for each season. The main reason for having plot first is as WP:MOSTV notes, that wikipedia tends to use plot information as context for understanding the real world information in the article. (I would also think that plot/character info is more commonly what readers are looking for, but that is my own speculation).
 * 2. I am also concerned that a supposed "good article" tag has been placed at the top of the article, along with an instruction to editors to not change any content on this page, when per this talk page the article has not been rated as WP:GA and no discussion has been had here to reach consensus such that editors can be told not to change the content. (And again my personal preference would be that such warnings are not included as they may make new editors feel like the article is owned by someone rather than available for all to edit.)
 * Updated: Just to clarify, I have removed the Good Article tag as it was added by another editor as their only contribution to WP so far, and there does not appear to have been any nomination for WP:GA status for this article. I still have concerns about the 'warning' not to edit the article. Melcous (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to hear from some other editors on these. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just comment on the "do-not-edit note" - that should be removed. This article is not GA/FA which means that no review process has been made and no consensus reached (and even then, I am not sure if I'd personally like to see that note). --Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a regular editor here, and am not familiar with the topic, but I am a frequent editor of many television articles, and I agree that both in my opinion and according to the MOS that the episodes and cast/characters sections should come before the production info. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The production info should come before as it provides a basis as to how the show came about, and many other articles on Wikipedia follow the same structure, see articles like Breaking Bad, Mad Men and virtually any other show on Wikipedia to see that the structure outlined is the best way forward for the article. The production gives a background as to how the show came about, and keeping it this way is clearer for the reader. - PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The structure outlined in the MOS is not the be all and end all outcome. There is some leeway and editor discretion to the order, based on what may work better for this article. I would say, though, that personally I find it better to have the cast and episodes before the production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's simply not correct to say "virtually any other show" has this structure. For some random examples off the top of my head, see Game of Thrones, Orange Is the New Black, The Walking Dead (TV series), Boardwalk Empire ... all of which have cast and plot (or link to separate page on plot) before production information. I get that the MOS is not the be all and end all, but it is the standard to follow unless there are reasons for exceptions. Plot summaries and then cast/characters should generally come after the lead, as they provide the context for what follows, then background information, and this seems to be the consensus of what is being said here by everyone except PA. This is the closest we have to a consensus and yet PA you keep reverting without discussion or gaining consensus first.
 * Secondly, the section titled "Episodes" actually has two different kinds of information. Each season starts with broadcast info (air dates) and media (DVD releases) and then has a plot summary. This means the plot summaries are both lost within all that other information instead of being up front, and are also disjointed as the reader is switching back and forth between real-world and fictional-world information. They should be separate - and the headings I have used (Plot, Broadcast, Media) again are suggested by WP:MOSTV, and where what was previously used in this article. "Episodes" is unhelpful in this context because it can cover all of those different kinds of information. Melcous (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, we can follow your way forward, I can't even be bothered any more, but one thing is for sure is that the info about the DVD and media releases should be with the corresponding season as it makes the season easier to understand, rather than putting it under a banner titled "broadcast and media" as the info has nothing to do with broadcasts. Leaving the DVD and media releases keeps the fictional and real world information easier to understand and can allow for easier ways to find out about the media from its suitable season banner. PsychopathicAssassin (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this still makes no sense to me, nor does it follow the MOS. The section is called "plot" - real-world information on when episodes aired and DVD releases has nothing to do with plot and therefore does not belong in this section. You keep saying the information has nothing to do with "broadcast" but it is giving the dates when each season aired on TV (i.e. was broadcast). Again, if you read through WP:MOSTV and you will see suggested sections on Broadcast (including country of origin) and Media. The alternative is to have a table (which this article previously did) with air dates for each season, which I think would actually be much more readable. Would you be happy with restoring that? Melcous (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Name of firm
A copy edit question for anyone who knows about law firms: is it Pearson Specter Litt or Pearson-Specter-Litt? This might be my fault for introducing the hyphen, so I'd like to get confirmation for sure one way or the other and make it consistent throughout. —2macia22 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My personal experience with law firms is no hypen. Generally, I advise against mentioning the firm's name in the lead, because it changes like every season. Just as a general note. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the lead, it sounds much better now than it did with all of the former names listed. This is more for the plot summaries. Thanks! —2macia22 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Interviews
I'm just dumping links I've held on to for years but never did anything with, in the hopes someone else finds them useful. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  17:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * EW interview with Korsh after the finale
 * Macht tells EW about Harvey's mind
 * BuddTV interview with Korsh for season two, but it has some character origins, cases, and genre
 * Hollywood Reporter interviews Korsh, mostly season two, but some interesting things on production
 * Blast Magazine with Korsh, some conception for characters, unaired pilot, comments on case-of-the-weeks, Donna and Harvey's past, the pop culture references
 * Korsh, probably repeats what Blast has
 * Korsh Podcast with Jen Grisanti Consultancy
 * BuddyTV interview with Korsh, mostly for the role of Hardman on the series and some intention on Harvey and Donna's relationship
 * TVFanatic with Korsh, on the death of Edith, balancing the Louis love/hate, the future of season two
 * TVLine with Korsh, mostly on "High Noon", Donna's feelings for Harvey, office politics and dynamics shifting
 * Deadbolt with Korsh, mostly on "She Knows" and some notes on what Korsh intended
 * Blast Magazine with Korsh, lots of Hardman and Costabile, intentions for season two, and other stuff
 * Hollywood Reporter with Korsh after the seson one finale, some projections for the second season

The question is
... given that Mike Ross has the legal knowledge and the intelligence/intellectual bent of a lawyer, why 'a top legal firm' cannot work out some way of getting him the requisite qualifications. (or eg a plain law degree from nowhere and a Harvard postgraduate qualification) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This talk page is about the article of the series, not a forum. —  Wylie pedia  02:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Jenna Coleman
I don't know if this is relevant to the article, but Jenna Coleman's screen test for the role of Rachel Lane has been circulating on YouTube for a while. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kyyPOmIn3E) Would it be relevant in the production section to mention she was considered for the role? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ratings
Somebody changed all the ratings in every suits season!!! Judor92 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed they are all wrong. The correct ratings are . I will try to find when the changes were made and revert them if possible. Brojam (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've removed all the vandalism done by 31.49.74.31. The ratings should all be correct now. Please double check. Brojam (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

theme song
what are the lyrics to the theme song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.97.82.254 (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Series 7
Has just started on UK TV (Channel Dave) - which is slightly behind the US transmission. Can someone start the article off? 31.51.113.102 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Still season 6, season 7 will be fall/winter 2017 QLyme (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Suits
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Suits. - MrX 🖋 23:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suits which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)