Given multiple reviews about 1986 tv series L.A. Law, each offering insights, opinions, or criticisms on a single topic, merge them into a single, cohesive review. When reviews offer opposing viewpoints, ensure that both perspectives are represented in a balanced way. Structure the text to flow smoothly, weaving different points together to create a well-rounded summary. Ensure the text remains clear and easily understandable by removing any jokes, insider references, or quotes.Aim for a polished and engaging tone, creating a review that feels comprehensive and reflects the diversity of opinions. The text should be very long. Here the given reviews: ["At the time, LA Law was great. On rewatch, decades later, it's ok, but the pacing and subject matter don't hold up as well. There are many politically incorrect jokes and homophobic as well as misogynistic story lines, and so the series has not aged well.", 'Less than two dozen reviews for a show which, like the Buffy/Angel series which was yet to come, essentially changed the face of prime time drama? I am very disappointed. In the 60 and 70s, TV dramas (eg- Perry Mason, Mannix) were about the stories not the characters. If you wanted to learn about the characters, you had to infer the information from things that happened in the main narrative. Every now and then the writers might give the viewer a treat and actually do an episode about the main character himself/herself, but these were few and far between. It was of course just the opposite in daytime TV which is why for literally decades there was a clear divide between the two narrative styles. Shows like this one by Bochko (and his HILL STREET BLUES, which preceded it) paved the way for the type of work that Whedon (and others) would deliver later. Ultimately we would end up with programming in the current generation like Arrow (also reviewed by this scribe in the IMDb) where the line between dramatic narrative and soap opera has become indistinguishable, and no one, not even the Head Writer, really knows where the series is headed. But that is now. This was then. Aside from the usual weekly stories about amoral lawyers working for amoral clients, we had something here that was very new to the decade -- backstory. And we had it in spades. It also did not hurt that Harry Hamelin was voted at the time "sexiest man alive;" and that in an early episode, Bochko presented the viewer with an office party where the short, dull, nerdy lawyer (nicely played by Michael Tucker) got drunk and made a pass at the tall blonde Nordic-goddess lawyer played by Jill Eikenberry. And the pass worked! Viewers all over the US were gob-smacked by this scene, which so deftly played against type. And they were gob-smacked yet again when the the press agent for the show revealed that in real life the two, Tucker and Eibenberry, were husband and wife. Bottom line, unforgettable show, and a true piece of TV history.']

        Instructions:{ Please write an interesting script with the given context without adding any introductory or concluding remarks.
        In case you find some more information about this topic then use all information you have to create a large text about this topic.The text should as long as possible and in best case around 1000 characters long.
        Ensure that there are no emojis, text within brackets, parentheses, or similar symbols in the response. 
        Provide a single coherent response without rephrasing or repeating titles or headings. Avoid enumerations or bullet points. 
        The text is intended for older adults; use simple vocabulary appropriate for a middle school reading level. Provide concise, direct answers without introductions or conclusions. 
        Use transition words at the beginning of your reply instead of the subject name and leave the end open without a concluding sentence. 
        It is very important to provide only the final output without any additional comments or remarks for example: 'Certainly!' Here's the revised text.
         
        Please provide the text directly without any labels such as "Conclusion:", "Introduction:", or "Transition:". Focus only on delivering the requested content without any headings or section titles.
        Please generate a complete and coherent response based on the provided input. Ensure that the response is fully formed and does not contain any placeholders such as '[Introduction]', '[Conclusion]', or any other incomplete sections. 
        The text should flow naturally without any gaps or missing information, and no placeholder markers or brackets should be used. 
        Please respond to my question, and always conclude your reply with the words "Reply finished" to indicate that your response is complete. 
        Make sure the reply is fully contained before these words and is not cut off prematurely. Thank you.}