I have watched all but one episode (first day, episode 2 didn't air right here due to 9/11 commemoration ceremonies), so here's my full evaluation of this show as a long-time People's Court viewer, if somebody is interested.
The intro strikes a chord in my memory of the "Rhoda" opening credits ( "My name is Rhoda Morgenstern. I was born in the Bronx, New York in December, 1941. I've always felt responsible for World War II. The first thing I remember liking that liked me back was food. I had a bad puberty; it lasted 17 years. I'm a high school graduate. I went to art school. My entrance exam was on a book of matches. I decided to move out of the house when I was 24; my mother still refers to this as the time I ran away from home. Eventually I ran to Minneapolis, where it's cold, and I figured I'd keep better. Now I'm back in Manhattan. New York, this is your last chance!") without the humor. Here, MM skips over her primary claim to popularity, being judge on "The People's Court" for 22 seasons. If you don't seem to be together with that data, then why trouble with a biographical opening? On an everyday foundation, the spoken phrase intro about MM's lifestyles, trying to validate JM's credentials as a lawyer and judge, does not paintings and is irritating. Cringeworthy is her little dance sequence.
First, some differences between the two presentations: I very a lot omit Douglas, the bailiff. He used to be nice and likeable, this bailiff provides nothing with no interplay with JM. This man turns out like a knockoff. I'm wondering why TPC announcer is included and Douglas is not? The same announcer is a bad idea, as it invokes comparability to TPC and this display loses the comparison. I do not like, after we go back from damage, the case just resumes; I really like TPC's recap prior to testimony begins. Also missing is Doug's hallterview, as an alternative we have a 'Judge Judy' like observation via each litigant without anyone challenging their point of view. I'm very a lot fantastic without Harvey's post-case remark and particularly like no longer having Harvey's side road peanut gallery. The segments with Judge John are sporadic, and to this point seem to be opinions on criminal questions and now not the horrible personal questions TPC judges' phase devolved into.
Second, the circumstances lean towards being reasonably unusual/lovely relatively than the simple loans, contractors, safety deposit, canine bite cases of TPC. The first week overloaded on precoscious youngsters. Odd/lovely leads to a feeling of are those instances even real or simply cutesy ideas? This ends up in the total feeling that that this display is faux.
Third, the fakeness. The display comes off faux. Fake equals lame. The disclaimer at the end says that some of it's reenactmants nevertheless it all seems fake. The cases all get started out with the litigants giving each and every different dirty appears. Just comes off as acting and ridiculous. The "litigants" speak too well and what they say seems deliberate. The litigants try too laborious to be "interesting." Almost each case has the litigants having again and forths. MM tolerates this till she does not. The judge also tolerates speaking out of turn however one day, in virtually each and every case, she lays the hammer down that she is speaking with a purpose to come off as tricky, IMO. She permits it till she doesn't after which slaps the litigants down to exert her energy. Happens too steadily; it seems intentional.
Fourth, instances dragged out for a part hour. None of those instances are worth 30 minutes; dragging them out makes them even more tedious and uninteresting. This edit was inspired via the case of the plaintiff who grinded with defendant's boyfriend whilst dancing at a celebration, who, when threatened by way of the defendant, ran to the toilet after which jumped out the window, injuring her ankle. No, was not half-hour worthy and the added length made a stupid, ridiculous case with fake, anxious litigants much more dull.
Fifth, I have found some of JM's decisions questionable. I want there have been more (any?) posts in reality discussing person circumstances however, alas, no person seems to care sufficient to publish about the instances.
My overarching grievance is that the cases appear designed to be adorable/extraordinary/"interesting" somewhat than real and, coupled with the litigants almost certainly being (unhealthy) actors, the show comes off utterly fake, affordable (the courtroom set is cheap having a look even by TV court display standards), boring and boring. Also, deliver back Douglas (especially) and Doug. Middling and missable however up to now I keep looking at but no longer actually enjoying. Watching more or less seems like an obligation or chore and that's not just right.
Edited September 29, 2023 via BazingancG1vNJzZmien6fCrr%2BNqamipZWptq6x0WeaqKVfqbyxtcJoaG1pYGaGbrbUrKuim5Vis7C%2BjK2fnmWgmryxuMRmrqKsmGK3trDGnmSmoZyerq95xp6lnqqRoXqltdKcrKyrmaS7cLzAoJxoal8%3D