Disappointing shows
Mar. 24th, 2005 09:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechTV is dumbing itself down. Still. For years.
I can accept dumb shows. Some of the things I watch and enjoy I'm sure have detractors. I only get angry when a show brags about how well they did things, how much attention to detail they got. Funny how you never hear objective experts say the same things about those same shows. CSI currently tops my list for hypocritical excellence.
There's a reason I drifted away from network television: LCD. Pandering to the lowest common denominator has "dumb-ified" shows to the point where I gnash my teeth watching them. I caught an episode of CSI about some guy who'd died in a bathtub of hot water and had laid there for a week, happily turning into something disgusting. They must has spent a lot on the prop, since it was totally disgusting and they showed it A LOT! What really yanked my chain was the kind of "Baywatch" kind of stupidity in a show that constantly and loudly brags about their uncanny accuracy. Uncanny is right! *Basic* crime scene procedure violations ("Hey, I found a clue. I'll just pick it up and hold it up to the camera for *drahma*!"). Contrived (like, impossible) clues based on physical situations that would have to occur in the controlled conditions of a lab to occur; some outright impossible effects/conditions done for dramatic effect to snag the viewer; lots of plain ol' stupid. Like cops tough-sassing their captains (said cop looked like Dwight).
Back to the nasty body: the worst offense of all: they had the two "hot chick" investigators looking into this one. They're wearing Bay Watch tank tops and tight pants. OK...dumb and pander-y, but almost believable if you're a functional retard. What steamed my whistle was that they are moving the body and looking through that bathtub full of decomposed bloat with NO MASKS ON! C'mon! That place had to be tens kinds of stink. The whole neighborhood would have been wearing respirators or gone! The two hotties aren't even giving this the reaction that emptying a backed-up toilet would have gotten! They're just "La-dee-dah!" with witty chit-chat and cheerful expressions. *GNRRGH!*
Basic cable is no better-- it just offers different flavors of stupid and the occasional diamond. I watched an episode of "Animal X". What a load of offal! I'm told that the last season was far better, more straight-forward animal forensics. The new format has some old geezer who is shown glowing with some unholy blue aura around him. He over-acts in a way that is meant to dramatize every non-event; instead he gives the show the tone of a bad horror-show host. The investigations were shallow and uninteresting (this was about the "Beast of Gevauden", which should have been great!). They must have taken the budget for re-creating scenes and used it for the unholy aura, since the scenes looked like they shot 'em at a Ren Fair with acting to match. And I'm sure that the change in formats was to boost ratings-- LCD again.
On the other hand, I've only recently discovered (thank you, Discovery Channel and TIVO!) "Myth Busters"! Definitely a diamond! The show is creative, intriguing and just *fun*! They don't waste time with flashy, candy graphics or "celebrity" hosts: they just bust/prove urban myths! Usually involving something blowing up or a painful recreation. Fun!
And...I'll admit that what I saw of the dragon show on Animal Planet was much better than I had anticipated: kind of fun, actually. You could almost watch that after the "Walking with Dinosaurs" shows and have it seamlessly blend in. Now if they could only do one like this about werewolves...!
I can accept dumb shows. Some of the things I watch and enjoy I'm sure have detractors. I only get angry when a show brags about how well they did things, how much attention to detail they got. Funny how you never hear objective experts say the same things about those same shows. CSI currently tops my list for hypocritical excellence.
There's a reason I drifted away from network television: LCD. Pandering to the lowest common denominator has "dumb-ified" shows to the point where I gnash my teeth watching them. I caught an episode of CSI about some guy who'd died in a bathtub of hot water and had laid there for a week, happily turning into something disgusting. They must has spent a lot on the prop, since it was totally disgusting and they showed it A LOT! What really yanked my chain was the kind of "Baywatch" kind of stupidity in a show that constantly and loudly brags about their uncanny accuracy. Uncanny is right! *Basic* crime scene procedure violations ("Hey, I found a clue. I'll just pick it up and hold it up to the camera for *drahma*!"). Contrived (like, impossible) clues based on physical situations that would have to occur in the controlled conditions of a lab to occur; some outright impossible effects/conditions done for dramatic effect to snag the viewer; lots of plain ol' stupid. Like cops tough-sassing their captains (said cop looked like Dwight).
Back to the nasty body: the worst offense of all: they had the two "hot chick" investigators looking into this one. They're wearing Bay Watch tank tops and tight pants. OK...dumb and pander-y, but almost believable if you're a functional retard. What steamed my whistle was that they are moving the body and looking through that bathtub full of decomposed bloat with NO MASKS ON! C'mon! That place had to be tens kinds of stink. The whole neighborhood would have been wearing respirators or gone! The two hotties aren't even giving this the reaction that emptying a backed-up toilet would have gotten! They're just "La-dee-dah!" with witty chit-chat and cheerful expressions. *GNRRGH!*
Basic cable is no better-- it just offers different flavors of stupid and the occasional diamond. I watched an episode of "Animal X". What a load of offal! I'm told that the last season was far better, more straight-forward animal forensics. The new format has some old geezer who is shown glowing with some unholy blue aura around him. He over-acts in a way that is meant to dramatize every non-event; instead he gives the show the tone of a bad horror-show host. The investigations were shallow and uninteresting (this was about the "Beast of Gevauden", which should have been great!). They must have taken the budget for re-creating scenes and used it for the unholy aura, since the scenes looked like they shot 'em at a Ren Fair with acting to match. And I'm sure that the change in formats was to boost ratings-- LCD again.
On the other hand, I've only recently discovered (thank you, Discovery Channel and TIVO!) "Myth Busters"! Definitely a diamond! The show is creative, intriguing and just *fun*! They don't waste time with flashy, candy graphics or "celebrity" hosts: they just bust/prove urban myths! Usually involving something blowing up or a painful recreation. Fun!
And...I'll admit that what I saw of the dragon show on Animal Planet was much better than I had anticipated: kind of fun, actually. You could almost watch that after the "Walking with Dinosaurs" shows and have it seamlessly blend in. Now if they could only do one like this about werewolves...!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 02:19 pm (UTC)Would *anyone* watch CSI if the *real* drudgery work of forensic science was shown *accurately*? No.. trust me, pouring, loading and running a DNA agarose gel is the most BORING lab procedure in biology. Frozen blood droplets from an aerosol? COOOOOL!
Contrary to this, I find Mythbusters often inaccurate. Their methods are for entertainment purposes only, but come on.. do you *really* think their approach is scientific? Heh.. not a chance. But damn, is it alot of fun to watch!
I forget who originally coined the phrase, but I think it was a past colleague of mine I heard it from first:
"Science is alot of very boring and repetitive things done very carefully"
Such a thing does not entertaining drama make!
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 03:20 pm (UTC)Shows like "Quincy" were just as innacurate/bending the rules, they they didn't make such claims as being completely accurate and realistic. I do like some of the characters and interactions on the show...but they could use a lot more of that kind of storytelling.
I didn't think Mythbusters claimed scientific accuracy...just kind of garage-shop accuracy to see if, generally, the myth could be true. They had an out-take show recently that had all kinds of footage that they didn't use because of time or total failure of a hypothesis. I get the feeling that they're trying to be like the common nerd/geek who's curious about urban legends and these are what they/we would do if we had the time and were bored enough...
no subject
Date: 2005-03-24 08:49 pm (UTC)CSI's writers do make the show entertaining. There's always a tongue-in-cheek approach to the stories that I really love, and there's been a few episodes that I found mortifying because of the subject matter. The one that dealt with a 8 year old's fratercide really got to me. Its a fictional mystery drama within a certain latter-day genre, and nothing more.
The other thing that perhaps *I* really love CSI for is how they developed the characters. Grissom *is* the consummate scientist. He's like SO many scientists I've known in my time. Somebody got it right with him...ergo, he's someone I can identify with. Often, I'd be watching the show saying "God DAMN I'd love to work for that guy!" (BTW.. I did work for someone like him at Columbia. Best mentor I've ever had.)
Titty-bimbos? Which ones are you referring to, the skinny, shapeless gap-toothed girl that defines the phrase "Plain Jane", or the one that has more character flaws in social cooperation than most "major" character I've ever seen (Except for maybe Ted Danson's "Becker").
I don't know.. you can't compare Mythbusters and CSI. One's reality, the other fiction.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:44 am (UTC)I agree that some of the characters are great: I think Grissom may be my favorite as well (but I have friends that act a lot like he does). As far as the titty-girls go, I don't know their names (had the show on in the background), but it was apparently a fairly early episode and they were both fairly attractive (Catherine and Sara?). Even moreso in tank-tops.
?!?I don't think I ever compared Mythbusters to CSI-- though I did compare Mythbusters against Animal-X. All shows mentioned were just my rants on two good and two frustrating/bad shows I recently caught.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-25 12:56 pm (UTC)CSI doesn't try very hard to be believeable, just flashy and sensational, and saying that it's just part of its style is overlooking the fact that its just bad writing, and not playing fair with the viewers. (Or that its expectations of its viewers is very low to begin with.) It is ultimately an example of style over substance. If the show can't convince its viewers from the outset that its entirely set within a 'realistic' world (according to its internal logic and to the viewer's expectations of what a real world is) then its failed to suspend the viewer's disbelief and is ultimately a failure. People not following sensible procedures, behaving in uncharacteristic manners for their situations, all tend to pop the bubble of willing suspension of belief.
CSI lost me with the furry episode. I realized then that if it was so far off-base about that, what else was it off-base about? I can't believe it anymore, and thus can't watch it with much interest. I still watch it from time-to-time, but don't really miss it much if I don't.
Ah well; it's not like there isn't worse fare on; it's still heads and shoulders above NAVY CIS -- now -there's- a cartoon.