Why 'Suits LA' got disbarred
Witty banter, appealing characters, likable relationships and entertaining cases: Suits had it all. The beloved USA Network legal drama that ran for nine seasons before going off the air in September 2019 managed to do what some television shows only dream of achieving in a relatively short period of time: Find a whole new audience on streaming mere years after its finale.
After a resurgence on Netflix and Peacock made Suits 2023's most-streamed show, NBC greenlit a spin-off, Suits LA, in February 2024 to capitalize on the original series' renewed popularity.
The network bet big that Suits LA would recapture the magic that made Suits — starring Gabriel Macht as hotshot attorney Harvey Specter, and Patrick J. Adams as his protégé, Mike Ross — a fan favorite. For outsiders looking in, it seemed like a surefire hit.
However, the Los Angeles-set offshoot, which starred Stephen Amell (Arrow, Heels) as prosecutor turned defense attorney Ted Black, struggled to live up to expectations — both creatively and in the ratings.
The series, which premiered Feb. 23, got axed on May 9 by NBC before it even reached its Season 1 finale. The final episode, which aired May 18, ended on a whimper.
With so much going for it at the outset — fans wanting to return to the law offices of Pearson Hardman, the promise of new stories and the specter of Meghan Markle looming large — why did the series fail to land with viewers? Turns out, there may have been multiple factors that contributed to its short shelf life.
On paper, Suits LA seemed to have similarities to the original Suits. Both shows were set at prestigious law firms, both featured intelligent lawyers and both used the same theme song ('Greenback Boogie' by Ima Robot). The spin-off even brought back Suits creator Aaron Korsh and saw the return of original stars Macht and Rick Hoffman's Louis Litt. But that's where the commonalities ended.
Where Suits focused on the 'bromance' between Harvey and Mike and created dramatic tension by keeping alive the threat of Mike's secret (that he didn't have a real degree but practiced law anyway), Suits LA took a creative left turn. It centered instead on Ted's demons and traumatic family past, and introduced an internal coup in the first episode that set up an antagonistic dynamic between Ted and his best friend for the rest of the series.
Abandoning the signature charms that made Suits a bona fide hit proved to be a death knell for Suits LA.
'People went back, and they wanted the old Suits,' Robert Thompson, founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture and trustee professor of television, radio and film at Syracuse University, told Yahoo Entertainment. 'We want new episodes of the exact show that we loved so much back then.'
Lauren Piester, a freelance entertainment journalist who's covered Suits and Suits LA for various publications, said the spin-off failed to identify what made Suits thrive in the first place.
'I don't think Suits LA had any idea what people liked about Suits,' she told Yahoo Entertainment. 'Suits LA started the first episode by destroying all of the relationships it didn't have time to [build].'
'It was trying to be four shows at once — and none of them were like Suits,' Piester said.
Daniel Herbert, a professor in the Department of Film, Television and Media at the University of Michigan, echoed a similar sentiment. 'Maybe [for] most fans it was about this particular kind of relationship [between Harvey and Mike] and this particular kind of dramatic tension — will [Mike] be found out or not?' he said. 'If that's the draw and they don't have that same draw in the reboot, then it's by comparison not going to work. They changed the wrong thing.'
He acknowledged that 'it's a really tricky thing' revisiting a familiar universe that's already experienced success. And it's not an exact science, even if you think you got everything right.
Viewers will naturally compare the new version of a show to what they liked about the previous one — for better or for worse.
'But a lot of times, the reason people are watching reboots is because they like the original,' Herbert said. 'And if you're not as good as the original' — as was the case with Suits LA — 'then you're kind of stuck.'
Days after NBC gave Suits LA the axe, a top network executive cited disappointing numbers on linear and streaming as to why the Suits spin-off wouldn't live beyond 13 episodes. Since it debuted in February, Suits LA consistently underwhelmed in the ratings, hovering around 1.5 million viewers for NBC on Sunday evenings despite welcoming back memorable characters from its past. (For comparison's sake, the CBS Sunday drama Tracker ended its second season May 11 with 8.3 million viewers.)
'Suits [LA] has had a very short run, but it really just has not resonated the way we thought it would,' Jeff Bader, president of programming strategy at NBC, said during a conference call with reporters on why the show wouldn't return for a second season. 'There can be many, many reasons — people are speculating why it hasn't resonated, but it's just not really showing the potential to grow for us in the future unfortunately.'
Ultimately there was no 'growth potential' for Suits LA, Bader said.
Herbert believes executives may have taken the wrong lesson from the streaming success of Suits.
'A studio will get a false sense of the popularity of a show because it surges on Netflix,' he told Yahoo Entertainment. 'And this backlog demand suddenly makes … it look like, oh, this is a hot item. But it's not a reliable indicator of demand for a new product. It just means that audiences are finding this reservoir of existing programming that wasn't on Netflix previously and engaging with it.'
Some Suits LA cast members took the cancellation in stride. Bryan Greenberg, who played lawyer Rick Dodson, cheekily wrote on Instagram ahead of the May 18 finale 'Turns out Suits LA was a limited series all along,' alongside a laughing emoji. 'Thanks to everyone who watched and supported. We had a blast making this. It was fun to dance in Rick Dodson's goofy shoes for a season.'
His costar Lex Scott Davis who portrayed Ted's law firm partner Erica Rollins, reflected on her brief Suits LA journey in an Instagram post on May 18.
'What an honor it was to show up every day for the past year or so, playing make-believe, with your faces to greet me with a smile & a hug,' Davis wrote, along with various on-set photos. Her post ended with a wistful statement: 'Oh how I wish we could continue … but I know we'll all cross paths again someday soon.'
Piester thinks Suits LA could have worked if it took on a breezier approach, more in line with what USA Network captured so well in its heyday of 'blue skies' programming.
'A law firm in L.A. with a really smart guy running it. Maybe they could do a twist on it where at one point he was doing law without a law degree, but now [he] has one,' she said. 'He has misfits in his law firm, everyone likes each other and everyone's having a good time. That is what I would want from a Suits spin-off, and I didn't think it was a difficult thing to ask for.'
'The show wasn't executed as well as the one that it was spun off from,' Thompson said. 'It wasn't as interesting. It wasn't part of the cultural moment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I'm completely hooked on this new Netflix thriller that's so intense I can't turn it off
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Gripping new thriller series The Survivors only landed on Netflix last week, but it has already secured itself a place in the streaming site's top 5 - and I can see why! The six-part series is based on the bestseller by Jane Harper, and as a fan of Jane's books, I knew this was going to be a show to look out for. However, little did I know just how hooked I would be right from the word go. Set in the fictional seaside town of Evelyn Bay in Tasmania, The Survivors follows Kieran Elliot, whose life was changed forever 15 years ago when his brother and best friend drowned while trying to rescue him from a terrible storm. While the small town was rocked by the terrible tragedy, a young woman called Gabby also went missing on the same night. However, this is a mystery that no one in the local area seems to talk about. But why? In the present day, Bronte, a woman from out of town comes to investigate what happened to Gabby on the fateful day she vanished. But, it seems someone in the town isn't happy about her digging up old secrets, and soon tragedy hits Evelyn Bay once again when Bronte also turns up dead. But who has killed her and what did she unearth that got her murdered? Amazingly, all this happens in the very first episode of the series, meaning the season kicks off with a bang, and it doesn't let up from there. Each episode is packed with twists and turns that even the most dedicated crime thriller fan won't see coming, and I can promise you this show will quickly become your next box set to binge-watch - but unlike so many others, you'll be watching this one through your fingers! All six episodes of The Survivors are available to stream worldwide on Netflix now.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major TV Networks Set to Snub Trump's Military Parade for Sports
Donald Trump's June 14 Washington military parade may be relegated to news coverage on the streaming arms of the major TV networks. The parade marks the founding of the U.S. Army during the American Revolutionary War 250 years ago. Trump has promised an 'amazing day' with ' sorts of things' taking over the streets of Washington. The parade, with an estimated cost of up to $45 million according to military officials, also coincides with Trump's 79th birthday. Despite the hard sell from the President, TV networks are scrambling to figure out how much of the event they will cover on traditional live TV and how much will go straight to their streaming arms. Sources close to ABC News, NBC News and CBS News told Variety the networks would be unlikely to change their traditional sports-based Saturday night programming to cover the parade. ABC News will 'cover the parade across programs and platforms' including their 24/7 streaming news channel. The network has the UFL championship game airing in primetime on Saturday night. NBC's streaming arm, NBC News Now, will feature special coverage of the event, with NBC airing the U.S Open Golf when the parade is happening. CBS News are also promoting the event on their streaming network, while their main channel airs local news and a repeat screening of the police-based comedy drama Elsbeth. For those looking for more extensive coverage, Fox News Channel will dedicate four hours to the parade on Saturday as part of the 'Army 250 Parade'. Fox's main channel will air the Major League Baseball on Saturday night. NewsNation are also promising dedicated coverage, including performances from the Army drill team and first vision of the military vehicles being flown in for the parade. Army officials have estimated a potential 200,000 people will attend the evening parade. On Tuesday, Trump threatened anyone planning to protest at the military parade in Washington 'that hate our be met with heavy force.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What parents should consider before sharing photos of their children online
While Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have previously shared official portraits of their two children, Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, they have chosen to keep both out of the spotlight since their departure from royal duties and move to California in 2020. But, coinciding with the release of her Netflix show, With Love, Meghan, earlier this year, the Duchess of Sussex returned to social media – offering fans a snapshot of her family's new life in the Golden State. The first tidbit Meghan shared was part of a tribute to her late dog Guy, where both Archie and Lili could be seen playing with the pup, and audio of them talking could be heard alongside the backing track. Then, we later saw snippets of the children in a Reel of Meghan making biscuits with friends. She also previously shared a video on Instagram Stories, showing her and Lili wearing matching beekeeping outfits as they approached a beehive. Today, celebrating her daughter's fourth birthday, Meghan posted two black-and-white images of them both – one taken recently, the other of when she had just given birth. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (@meghan) In all of these pictures, though, she has chosen to keep her children's faces out of shot or obscured to protect their identities. Of course, Meghan and Harry have both expressed their desire for privacy over the years, instead choosing what, when and how they share information with the public (for the most part). But, they're not the only parents who choose to shield their kids' faces when sharing photos and videos online. This is becoming a particularly pertinent trend among parents since various updates to data-sharing policies and Meta's announcement that it would be using certain user images and content to help train artificial intelligence (AI) models. Even so, "sharenting" – the movement of parents sharing content of their kids online – has long been a hot topic of debate. Some argue that social media allows them to connect with other parents and similar communities, as well as give updates to family and friends. But others brandish the exercise as irresponsible and exploitative – and that's before we even get to kids having access to their own social media accounts and how to navigate that. So, here's what you need to know. First things first, it's important to understand what tech companies can do with images and information. Dr Jason Nurse, a reader of cyber security at the University of Kent, tells Yahoo UK that, depending on the social media platform, there is a risk that images can be shared and used in different ways. He explains: "Companies don't usually 'own' the pictures uploaded to them. Rather, by uploading photos, we are typically agreeing to grant the platform a licence to use our content. This could include obvious actions, such as displaying content on one's profile page, but it may also allow them to use a person's content for other purposes. "This doesn't necessarily mean that photos will appear in other places online (e.g. in advertisements), but it is wise to always read the terms of service before using social media sites," he adds. Developer OpenAI, for example, has previously confirmed that it uses copyrighted material and data from the internet in order to train its chatbot, ChatGPT. Snapchat has also said that by using its AI-generated selfie feature, users' images may be used in ads and sponsored content. Dr Nurse says that while some platforms may have different rules, generally speaking, private settings are more of a safeguard when it comes to protecting your content, particularly if you're worried about sharing pictures of your children. "For some, private accounts primarily control which other individuals on (or off) the platform can view posts or photos. This therefore may not naturally translate to greater restrictions on social media platforms," he explains. "For others, setting photos or posts to private may afford users a higher level of privacy even in terms of their use by the platform itself; this has been discussed especially around private posts, with some platforms like X confirming that such posts are not used to train AI." Additional online safety threats, according to Dr Nurse, include photo misuse and exploitation and privacy violation. "Sharing photos of children exposes them to this long before they are even able to curate their own digital presence," he adds. "Shielding their faces, as Meghan has done, can be a good way to protect their identities, as our faces are our most distinguishing features." Jenny Warwick, a BACP-accredited counsellor who specialises in providing support for parents and carers of adolescents and teenagers, stresses: "Once images are online and 'out there' – they are 'out there'. They become widely accessible and can be downloaded, altered, shared and circulated without your consent. Even the most innocent photos can be exploited and misused by people whose intention is not innocent. It's a horrible thought, but unfortunately, it's a reality that highlights the potential for harm." She adds: "Additionally, due to the long-lasting and often permanent imprint of digital footprints, your children are inheriting an online presence that they have not or could not have chosen, which can impact their futures. It also opens up the risk of identity theft as personal information, such as full names, locations, or school uniforms, for example, can be used fraudulently." While Warwick understands the motivation behind posting can range from pride and love to a desire to feel less lonely, she says it's important to assess what can happen beyond the immediate post. She says: "Sharing our children's milestones helps boost a sense of connection and community, so we feel supported and less alone. We want to keep memories of our kids' childhood, and social media platforms make it easy to create a digital scrapbook or diary. Plus, likes, comments and engagement can give a sense of validation and social approval, which feels rewarding. "But when sharing about your child online, consider their future feelings by asking yourself if you would want this information or content shared about you. Avoid posting personal details like full names, school names, locations or dates of birth." "Ask yourself if the content could be misinterpreted or misused, particularly in the case of photos taken at bath time, the beach or during emotionally vulnerable moments," Warwick continues. "While sharing humorous or cute content might feel fun, ask yourself if this is respecting your child's dignity. Is this something they might feel embarrassed or ashamed of if they were aware of it? Ask your child how they feel about a photo being shared. Even very young children can express their consent or dissent." Warwick warns that, while sharing pictures can build a sense of family connection and pride if done mindfully, children may also feel pressure to "perform" for the camera rather than just being themselves. "They may feel embarrassed or ashamed – particularly if their private or vulnerable moments are made public," she says. "If they're feeling overly scrutinised or 'known' online, this can impact their mental health, and they may develop anxiety or challenges with their identity." She adds: "If your children discover that things were shared without their knowledge, they might feel betrayed, undermining their trust in caregivers to prioritise their well-being. Plus, when their boundaries and consent aren't considered, they will struggle with boundaries and distinguishing between public and private in their own lives." Finally, Dr Nurse advises: "I would always suggest parents consider the implications of sharing such photos, and weigh them up against the risks. If sharing is deemed appropriate, it's really important for parents to limit what's included in the photos of children and who can access them. "Ideally, I suggest always limiting viewing to a small circle of family members or friends, and asking them never to re-share photos without your consent." Read more about parenting: How a social media curfew could impact your children (Yahoo Life UK, 7-min read) 5 ways to support your child's talent as Beyoncé's daughter Blue Ivy returns to the stage (Yahoo Life UK, 7-min read) Why sleepovers have become a new nightmare for parents (Yahoo Life UK, 12-min read)
