I've heard about Copper. Looking forward to it.

Me, too.

Me, as well.(Historical + police procedural? Yes, please)

Is anyone watching "Inside Men"? I can't figure out if I just don't like it or because I don't like 2 out of the 3 main actors.

Vortex,

I saw it a few months back and I want you to explain the end to me because I have been puzzling over the end off and on for weeks and I can't for the life of me figure out if they ended it this way due to incompetence or if it was intentional or both.

I'm confused by something on Suits--the bit where the returning partner says he stole Jessica's tea set because his deceased wife had given it to her.

Is that supposed to be rational and defensible? In what world?

It sounds creepy and needy more than anything else.

Interesting corner they took with Louis. I kinda mostly buy it, since they haven't been showing him as incompetent, really--more of just an asshole and an asskisser. I mean, he'd have to be more than competent to work at such a demanding firm. It's just that Mike and Harvey and Jessica are crazy good.

Speaking of creepy--David Costabile is giving me shiver with the unctuous performance as Daniel. I can't tell--he could be malicious, or he could be sincere. Very confuse.

And, good lord--I think I google Meghan Markle every week. She is *gorgeous*. I can't get over the construction of her face. Such a great balance. And, hey! More light brown people with freckles. The world can't hae enough of those. Fuck, there's a lot of beautiful in this cast...

I assumed he was lying because that didn't make any sense. I mean, you want something to remind you of your wife, bring something from home, geez. But if he was just taking something of Jessica's to see if he could get away with it without anyone saying anything, he wouldn't want to say so.

He either conveyed one of two things: a) I have extreme attachment issues and don't respect your boundaries or b) I'm a lying liar that lies as he drinks tea.

He doesn't seem stupid, so the weirdness of that admission took me by surprise. It's the closest thing to a chink he's displayed.

Yeah, I see no way for it to be other than very peculiar. I don't really know which stripe of peculiar it is, but I find the notion that he was sincere more off-putting, I think.

So--Common Law.

Is the premise that these guys have performance issues that will be addressed with successful counselling, or are they doing penance for a particular eruption?

I don't think they're selling it that they work badly together and need help. And although every episode has a nod to the exercise of the week contributing to solving the mystery, but there's no indication anything is sticking.

And it's kinda conflicting with the "Odd couples make a good crimefighting team" that's pretty prevalent, not least of all on USA or TNT.

I mean, they clearly have a ridiculous number of closes, since they were bucking up on a record last week.

I know I'm not looking in the right place to find taut character studies and character growth, but it seems to hinge on the fact that the premise isn't true. White Collar and Leverage don't have to make any contradictory assertions when they mine conflict for humour, and they do get to resolve some of the tension, by showing the differences as a clear advantage, and they can move past it.

But the "it: is the entire premise of this show. The counsellor is kinda icky slick, but she or her equivalent has to be there for the entire series, and despite every breakthrough they have they can't make quantum leaps. In whatever.