"'Bull' Doesn't Make Sense (But It Is Still A Big Hit)"

And I think I know why.  Though I shall save that glittering revelation for the end.  If you’re in a hurry, you can jump down there and find out.  Missing out on the Pomerantzian pleasures along the way, but that is entirely up to you.

You see what a democracy this is?

Okay.  Here we go.

Every time I watch Bull, I go, “This show doesn’t make sense.”

And yet I still watch it.

Part of the reason I watch is that, for the past two seasons, Bull’s show-runner has been Glenn Gordon Caron, an erstwhile contemporary of mine (we both wrote for Taxi.)  Seeing Glenn’s name on the credits fulfills my “Envy Quotient” for the rest of the week.

“You are so honest!”

I know!  Aren’t I?

Also, I like to see how he’s doing.

Backtracking, a little valuable background about Bull…

Pitched, sold and produced by heavyweights Dr. Phil – on whose earlier career the show’s loosely derived – Steven Spielberg and respected screenwriter Paul Attanasio – those are “Big People.”  Network executives say “Yes” to those people, swiftly validating their parking. 

No surprise then that Bull made it onto the schedule.  And will likely remain there till it produces enough episodes – traditionally a hundred – for viable syndication.  Despite a drop, due to a “Season Three” time-slot switch, Bull’s ratings remain strong.  So it stays on, and it flourishes.

Despite, as previously mentioned, the show’s making no sense.

Wherein we dig deeper…

A show about jury consultants, a group inherently dedicated to winning, though not necessarily to “justice.”

Making the show’s “Sympathy Factor” precariously “iffy.”

Which I shall return to forthwith but not immediately forthwith.  (A lower echelon “forthwith.”)

One part of Bull’s premise I find original and interesting:  The process of selecting a jury, psychologically “favoring” the client.  For example, if their client’s a natural “Rules Follower”, through penetrating questioning, they seek out sympatico “Rules Followers” to serve on the jury.  If the client’s a recognized “Decision Maker”, habitual “ditherers” are politely excused from their service.

All right, so there’s a carefully evaluated jury.  Now what?

The “Consulting Team” assembles its argument for maximum effect, gauging its success by how many “Greens” – sympathetic to the defendant – and how many “Reds” – “String him up!” – are detected via some whiz-bang technology, which, assuming it is not entirely made up – I do not satisfactorily comprehend. 

The thing is – and I know this from Law & Order – you only need one “Not guilty” to effectively “hang” a jury, releasing the defendant from ongoing jeopardy, unless the prosecution anticipates an opposite outcome from trying them again.

So what’s all the excited, “Great news!  We are ‘trending’ more ‘Green’?” 

You just need one “Green”, and it’s over!

So there’s that.  Realistically, hardly a small “that.”

Which takes us back to the show’s “Likability Factor.”

To insure that, Bull’s clients all, or at least overwhelmingly, have to be innocent, as it inevitably turns out they are.

Making the issue of “jury selection” totally irrelevant.  If their client’s shown to be innocent – due to Bull’s team’s revealing the actual perpetrator – it makes no difference who’s sitting on the jury.  That’s an “It’s all ‘Green’”, no matter what.

Ergo, the show doesn’t make sense.

Why then is it popular?

The answer appears to be this.

Once, when I asked Major Dad star Gerald McRaney,

“Why do you think people watch this show?”

he replied – accurately, if not humbly –

“They like ‘The Guy’.”

I believe the same answer applies here.

Audiences like Bull’s star, Michael Weatherly.  (As I actually do myself.)

In TV – and perhaps elsewhere as well – when the audience “likes the guy”,

You can start buying big houses.

Because when they do, nothing – including “The show doesn’t make sense” – ultimately counts for a hoot.