# CSI TV series: Entertaining or Laughable?



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 13, 2012)

This came up as off-topic in another thread (about poking holes in meat to let in the marinade) and I thought it might be interesting to pursue it in an appropriate forum area:



GLC said:


> My view of poking at it [meat] with a fork is about like one  of the sillier episodes of CSI where they used resin to mold the shape  of a knife blade by pouring it into the knife wound. (Maybe it was the  technical consultants' day off.) The wounds don't stay open when the  instrument is tapered.





Gourmet Greg said:


> I had to quit watching the show entirely  because so much of it is too fanciful, such as your example. Or imagine  the top CSI dude driving a Hummer tricked out with red lights and  siren... Yeah that's gonna happen...





CharlieD said:


> We should start a laughing thread about CSI; there is so much nonsense there



I just had to quit watching _CSI_ because so much of the show seemed so patently ridiculous. For example Horatio Caine in the Miiami show driving that tricked out Hummer. Come on! If I were a Miami taxpayer and this was real life I'd be screaming my head off at spending so much money just to drive an investigator to a crime scene. In real life I'm pretty sure CSI personnel would be driving vans or something like that. The boss would probably drive something like a Crown Vic.

And what's with this racing to the scene with red lights and siren? In real life the CSI works on dead people and taking finger prints and vacuuming up trace evidence. There's no need for them to rush to a scene. Crime scenes are secured by police officers until the investigation is completed.

Can you imagine driving along and you see red lights behind, and then you pull over and stop, and the guy gets out of his unit and informs you that he's a crime scene investigator and wants to see your license, registration and proof of insurance? WTH? I'm not a scene!!! If you're a CSI then please go find a scene to investigate! 

And what about their main office? It's an architectural show place! What government building did you ever see with all that interior decoration and transparent panels and mood lighting and vast spaces? Real CSI investigators probably often work in basement and sub-basement labs, fluorescent lit and never a hint of sunlight or views outside. I've worked in electronic labs like that, no frills other than the fancy equipment and you could work all day and all night and never know what the weather outside is like or whether the sun is up or down. That's what real life labs look like, not places that could appear in Architectural Digest.

So what do you think about the CSI TV series? I think they're so far off reality that I can't even stand to watch it. I used to be a fan but all the flaws just kept building up until my opinion of the show died the death of a thousand cuts.

I think GLC and Charlie might agree with me. What say the rest of you?


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 13, 2012)

I look at it this way:  All TV comedy and drama asks you to suspend reality to a lesser or greater extent.  Really, which bothers you more, Horatio's Hummer or vampires, ghost whisperers, extra-terrestrials or martial arts that require the suspension of the laws of gravity?

You seem to have focused on the Miami version of CSI.  I find that the most objectionable version and stopped watching it years ago.  All your comments aside, who ever worked with that many great looking women who dressed in revealing clothes!?  Now, THAT'S unbelievable!


----------



## Barbara L (Feb 13, 2012)

As I've always said, if we want to watch reality, we can just sit around and look at each other.  

Good points, but I still enjoy watching some shows that aren't totally grounded in realism.  We spout off now and then about how "that couldn't really happen," etc., but we still enjoy it.


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 13, 2012)

Barbara L said:


> As I've always said, if we want to watch reality, we can just sit around and look at each other.
> 
> Good points, but I still enjoy watching some shows that aren't totally grounded in realism.  We spout off now and then about how "that couldn't really happen," etc., but we still enjoy it.




I absolutely agree.  Suzanne sometimes scoffs at the stuff we watch and I remind her, "It's not supposed to be realistic, it's television."


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 13, 2012)

Yeah, Andy, I know what you mean about Hummer driving CSI lieutenants vs. vampires and ETs. Maybe my problem is that the CSI stuff is closer to the real reality, and that the vampire/ET stuff is so distant that there's no dissonance with real life. I think some CSI fans may not even realize that much of the CSI technical stuff is bogus. I'm from a scientific occupation and probably know too much about the real technical reality.

I did focus on the Miami CSI but not for any particular reason. Maybe I've seen that one more often than the others. And I want to admit to everybody that I was a CSI fan for years. It's only in the last year or so that I just got fed up.


Actually I'm not getting much enjoyment out of any of the TV shows. I'm in temporary quarters and get only broadcast TV, too much trouble to get cable or satellite for what I hope will be only a few more months, so I'm getting bottom of the barrel TV here. Honestly I'd rather watch a cooking program and forget the comedy/drama stuff.


----------



## Rocklobster (Feb 13, 2012)

I don't want to sound too critical, but if you get the chance, watch some British Police Drama's. They are very real. The heros aren't perfect, their personal  lives are challenging at best, good people die sometimes, people get away, and everybody isn't good looking enough to be models. I can't take the American stuff. I just sit there and yell "AS IF. AHHHHHHHHH!!!!"


----------



## Barbara L (Feb 13, 2012)

Rocklobster said:


> I don't want to sound too critical, but if you get the chance, watch some British Police Drama's. They are very real. The heros aren't perfect, their personal  lives are challenging at best, good people die sometimes, people get away, and everybody isn't good looking enough to be models. I can't take the American stuff. I just sit there and yell "AS IF. AHHHHHHHHH!!!!"


I enjoy shows like that as well. I like a balance in what I watch, with some realism, some grounded in reality but not completely realistic, some totally unrealistic but with a slight feel of reality, and once in awhile a little mindless fluff. Too much of any one type takes the enjoyment away for me.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 13, 2012)

I guess I can't take the American stuff either. The last few seasons I've found fewer and fewer shows I enjoy. I'll accept there may be better shows on cable/satellite but I don't have that. I'll even accept that the British dramas might be better but I don't get them either.

Another thing, I'm just not enjoying crime fiction or police procedurals lately anyway (TV or print). There's so much crime and violence in the news that it's beginning to turn my stomach, even in fiction. TV crime drama didn't use to be like this. Years ago they couldn't show all the gore and violence and blood and guts. These days crime dramas like CSI probably put a million dollars per episode into special effects gruesomely realistic blood and guts. News and drama are converging on something I'm finding increasingly difficult to stomach. Both of them difficult to watch.

Do the British programs have as much violence and gore?


----------



## GLC (Feb 13, 2012)

Apparently, the primary qualification for criminologists on CSI is a tortured past or a tortured present or both. 

And I know how they afford the lab that would shame StarTrek and Google combined.  They just never pay their electric bills. 

Silly as Bones.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 13, 2012)

Yeah, that Bones program is silly too. I think it's more about the characters and their relationships than crime fighting, the latter just providing a framework for the characters to interact within. If I had to watch it or CSI I'd prefer Bones because of the lesser blood, gore and violence (IMO).

I haven't found the clash of TV science vs. real science as bad as CSI but I'll admit I haven't watched Bones for a couple years so I've kind of forgotten the details.


----------



## Barbara L (Feb 13, 2012)

A very good point was brought up. If you are very knowledgeable about a subject, it is always harder to watch something that goes against what you know.  My mom and I loved shows like "The Waltons" and "Little House on the Prairie," but now and then they would do something that just rankled us!  For instance, Grandma Walton was supposed to be such a good bread baker, but it was almost painful to watch her "knead" bread dough, poking it a little with her fingers. And on one episode of "Little House..." Albert put potatoes in the wood-burning oven to bake. The potatoes exploded, and Albert immediately scooped the potatoes out of what was supposed to be a blazing hot oven with his bare hands! I just about lost it!

So, I think we all have things we find hard to watch because of our own level of knowledge. Some of us can put up with one thing but not another.


----------



## CharlieD (Feb 13, 2012)

If real life CSI had the same success rate, all the crimes would have been solved long ago, all the criminals arrested and we would live in complete peace and harmony.


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 13, 2012)

There's a lot about the CSI shows I find ridiculous, but I find all of them entertaining, except for CSI Miami.  I like their computers and view it as science fiction, but the characters just don't seem believable to me.  Caine always looks like he's posing for a catalog, and the dress code on all of the CSI shows is absurd and distracting. 

I have a problem with the Law & Order shows.  I didn't watch it until recently, and found some interesting topics sometimes, but that "nervous violin" music sets me on edge.  I often watch with closed captioning so I don't have to hear that constant irritating "music".


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 13, 2012)

CharlieD said:


> If  real life CSI had the same success rate, all the crimes would have been  solved long ago, all the criminals arrested and we would live in  complete peace and harmony.


Charlie, if only that were true. The idea that all crime could be ended has been explored in a novelistic genre that might be called "futuristic dystopia," such as George Orwell's _1984_ (a novel that from our present day perspective could be seemingly about the past but was written in 1949), Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World_, and Ray Bradbury's _Fahrenheit 451_. The premise to all of them, it seemed to me, is that you cannot control human nature except by having an oppressive society. It's the classic question, do the ends justify the means? It seems that it's human nature to commit crimes, and I cannot imagine any free society that wouldn't also involve crime and criminals.

If you make it impossible to commit crime then you will also make impossible to enjoy freedom. Sad but true. IMO


----------



## Steve Kroll (Feb 13, 2012)

I've never seen a single episode, but from the sounds of things,  I guess I'm not missing a lot. I don't mind fiction, but I don't care for over-the-top programs. I like history and I diy type shows. Occasionally movies.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 13, 2012)

Zhizara said:


> There's a lot about the CSI shows I find ridiculous, but I find all of them entertaining, except for CSI Miami.  I like their computers and view it as science fiction, but the characters just don't seem believable to me.  Caine always looks like he's posing for a catalog, and the dress code on all of the CSI shows is absurd and distracting.



Zhizara your post had me almost ROTFLMAO!  I cannot imagine any reality that doesn't include David Caruso ("Lt. Horatio Caine") posing as a male clothing model. Maybe he never dis that but I totally believe he could have a successful career in that if he had not become an actor. All the actors in CSI both the men and the women have very stylish good looks. I certainly can't criticize them for that, although perhaps envy them...

Perhaps more on their dress code? I'll admit I'm not much into fashion. (Is T-shirt, blue jeans and athletic shoes fashion? ) It seems reasonable to me that their dress code wouldn't relate to reality either. What does a CSI Lt. wear while driving his official issue Hummer? 



Zhizara said:


> I have a problem with the Law & Order shows.  I didn't watch it until recently, and found some interesting topics sometimes, but that "nervous violin" music sets me on edge.  I often watch with closed captioning so I don't have to hear that constant irritating "music".



You've picked upon the single, most irritating reason I cannot watch that damned Law & Order series, that "dum-dum-dum" (whatever) note they keep playing as they introduce each new scene. That damned noise drove me from the very first year into not watching it because I just couldn't stand it. And the subtitles, I forgot what they called it, section blah-blah-blah in such-and-so court... (Not the closed captioning, which I often use.) That damned noise made it impossible for me to watch the series. I wonder if the producers even have any inkling of this. I'm pretty sure you and I agree on what is infuriating about it, and if there's two of us just on the forum then maybe many people dislike it.

There was a TV news program, I think on the ABC network, they slightly changed their signature theme music, changed the cadence of it, and so many viewers hated it that they changed it back.

I think I mentioned the "death of a thousand cuts" earlier in this topic (or maybe a different topic). I believe the original quote deals with something like paper cuts. But that's the point. One CSI episode I could deal with. What I can't handle is that week after week they insult those of us who really know technology, and from what another DC member said they insult those who really know law enforcement and LE procedures and protocols.

I'm just waiting for them to run an instant DNA comparison from their cellphone!


----------



## babetoo (Feb 13, 2012)

i love law and order in all it's forms." law and order, criminal intent" the best. i used to watch csi. after a couple of years i got tired of the same old plot. the miami version , i only watched once. t.v. here and i have cable is pathetic. give me a law and order rerun anytime, rather than the reality shows. they are stupid. i have enough of reality in my own life. thank you very much.


----------



## CraigC (Feb 13, 2012)

I just look at the stuff as entertainment. The sad thing is some folks actually can't make the separation between reality and entertainment. You find the same problem with the schtick of all the radio talk show hosts and the foolish listeners that actually take them seriously.


----------



## Rocklobster (Feb 13, 2012)

CraigC said:


> I just look at the stuff as entertainment. The sad thing is some folks actually can't make the separation between reality and entertainment. You find the same problem with the schtick of all the radio talk show hosts and the foolish listeners that actually take them seriously.


To me it's like home cooking vs. McDonalds......


----------



## CraigC (Feb 13, 2012)

Rocklobster said:


> To me it's like home cooking vs. McDonalds......


 
What, you don't think Mickey D's is real food?


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 13, 2012)

The original CSI was good and really tried the first couple of years. Then they started including the characters into the why and wherefore of the crimes.  They were no longer objective observers, but participants.  This would not be allowed IRL.

I do enjoy the technical aspects, but do see where they mess it up, too.  Kinda like me watching ER, House, etc and spotting all the laughable screw-ups with medical equipment and how people react.

I still enjoy the Original CSI, never liked NY or Miami (I think Horatio Caine should be horsewhipped out of town).  But now I watch knowing it is far removed from reality and they have some good episodes that make you go "Hmmmm!"


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 13, 2012)

babetoo said:


> i used to watch csi. after a couple of years i got tired of the same old plot. the miami version , i only watched once.



You've reminded me of one thing I particularly hate about CSI, that they have this recurrent theme with a serial killer who keeps (barely) just escaping. They keep recycling him in episode after episode.

Serial killers has got to be one of the smallest classes of all criminals. Read _Silence of the Lambs_ by Thomas Harris, or see the movie. It's the best serial killer novel/movie ever. I read a couple of the sequels but I had to quit before I read the last in the series.

I'm not up for any more serial killer fiction, in TV, print or movies. Particularly I'm not up for it on _CSI_.


The best CSI ever was _CSI: Las Vegas_ when Grissom was part of the series. That was the best ever. I liked it then. Not the two part ender where he was buried underground. Maybe that's when the CSI science and I finally had a parting of the ways. I think Grissom was their best character ever.


----------



## GLC (Feb 13, 2012)

Bones is technically a bit more realistic, other than the expected near miraculous speed and reliability of their devices and the wholly bogus existence of a museum employing criminalists. And of course, there's the FBI agent running around investigating all sorts of local crimes over which the FBI has no jurisdiction, has no federal law to enforce, isn't even a peace officer under state law, and would have been chased off by the proper local agency. 

CSI was like a lot of shows, not bad in the beginning when they were no more silly than expected for television. Kind of like House. Okay while they had legitimate medical mysteries, but quickly becoming a soap opera. Besides, you always knew what their first guess would be. Did any of his patients ever actually turn out to _have_ amyloidosis?

Someone tried to get me watching Dexter. I couldn't get past the first episode. Psychopathic killers are never going to adopt, as Dexter was supposed to, some moral code from his father that he would kill only bad people. That's too absurd to watch. There's nothing likable or sympathetic about these guys. They're all grossly self-absorbed and thoroughly despicable specimens. The Ewww! factor is just too much. 

Breaking Bad was about the same. There's nothing even vaguely amusing about meth cooks. They're scum of the Earth. I've dealt with way too much grief they're responsible for to accept it as entertainment.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

GLC said:


> Bones is technically a bit more realistic, other than the expected near miraculous speed and reliability of their devices and the wholly bogus existence of a museum employing criminalists. And of course, there's the FBI agent running around investigating all sorts of local crimes over which the FBI has no jurisdiction, has no federal law to enforce, isn't even a peace officer under state law, and would have been chased off by the proper local agency.



GLC that is so spot on that I wouldn't touch it at all. You nailed it!



GLC said:


> CSI was like a lot of shows, not bad in the beginning when they were no more silly than expected for television. Kind of like House. Okay while they had legitimate medical mysteries, but quickly becoming a soap opera. Besides, you always knew what their first guess would be. Did any of his patients ever actually turn out to _have_ amyloidosis?



OMG I used to be a big time _House_ fan! What finally killed it for me is all the misery House would send his patients through, drilling into their brains and all that (even one of his fellow doctors got brain drilled) until finally at :54 minutes House would rush to the rescue with the final, amazing, totally unlikely--and correct--diagnosis.

The worst thing I could wish on anybody would be to become the patient of Dr. Gregory House. I'm sorry I share my name with his character.



GLC said:


> Someone tried to get me watching Dexter. I couldn't get past the first episode. Psychopathic killers are never going to adopt, as Dexter was supposed to, some moral code from his father that he would kill only bad people. That's too absurd to watch. There's nothing likable or sympathetic about these guys. They're all grossly self-absorbed and thoroughly despicable specimens. The Ewww! factor is just too much.



The biggest mistake you made was to watch the _Dexter_ TV program (HBO I believe). Instead you should have read the first Dexter novel, as I did, _Darkly Dreaming Dexter_. The debut novel was awesome! The sequels never delivered the novelty of the debut. The TV series never came close. I don't know if reading the novel after the series would please. I'm glad I read it first when it came to print, before the screen ruined it. It was such an original concept as a novel that it broke all preconcepts. As a TV program they ruined it.

_Darkly Dreaming Dexter_ may have been the darkest humor novel I've ever read, in fact probably is. Kudos to author Jeff Lindsay. It was deliciously, sinfully dark. It was so darkly funny that I'm almost ashamed that I enjoyed it so much! How could anybody write a novel about the humorous side of being a serial killer? And yet Lindsay did! And well done!



GLC said:


> Breaking Bad was about the same. There's nothing even vaguely amusing about meth cooks. They're scum of the Earth. I've dealt with way too much grief they're responsible for to accept it as entertainment.



I never heard of that program, and glad of it. I can't think of anything I would find amusing about drug abuse. Perhaps it's satire. If so I'd rather watch _Desperate Housewives_, of which I'll admit to being a fan for the first few seasons. DH was IMO sidesplitting funny in a satirical way. Unfortunately DH got repetitive, and IMO in an unintentional way began parodying itself.

Let's not say anything nice about any TV series, okay?


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 14, 2012)

Thing with House is...I can diagnose most of his patients in the first 5 minutes and nail it 80% of the time.  I'm not really a doctor, I just play one at home.

I can't watch House, it makes me angry watching how he treats people.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 14, 2012)

i remember a few years ago a real csi investigator was interviewed about his opinion of the shows.

he responded that the part that was farthest from reality was that they have 1 or 2 people do the entire investigation, soup to nuts. they personally investigate, catch, and incarcerate every criminal by themselves.
in the real world, there are some people do the on scene evidence collection, but then they hand it off to a string of other people to complete the investigation, then it's handed over to other law enforcement and judicial agencies to do all of the crime fighting and court stuff.

but besidess all of that, the csi said that he liked the show for *entertainment purposes.* i feel like grabbing some people and shaking them like an english nanny until they get that idea through their heads.

it's television folks. within the tv bidness there are 3 distinct departments or categories: news, sports, and entertainment. news and sports are self explanatory, although some lines  get blurred at times in news, usually by fox broadcasting. 
everything else falls under entertainment. even "reality tv" shows are manipulated enough to be entertainment.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 14, 2012)

buckytom said:


> i remember a few years ago a real csi investigator was interviewed about his opinion of the shows.
> 
> he responded that the part that was farthest from reality was that they have 1 or 2 people do the entire investigation, soup to nuts. they personally investigate, catch, and incarcerate every criminal by themselves.
> in the real world, there are some people do the on scene evidence collection, but then they hand it off to a string of other people to complete the investigation, then it's handed over to other law enforcement and judicial agencies to do all of the crime fighting and court stuff.
> ...



I do believe in the suspension of disbelief long enough to watch a show for the entertainment value.  But, there are some shows where the characters are so odious that it is difficult to suspend disbelief and enjoy the show.

Personally, I'm enjoying the 136th Westminster Dog Show...now THAT is entertainment.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 14, 2012)

hmmm, technically, that would probably be covered by the sports dept..


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> Thing with House is...I can diagnose most of his patients in the first 5 minutes and nail it 80% of the time.  I'm not really a doctor, I just play one at home.
> 
> I can't watch House, it makes me angry watching how he treats people.



You're in the business, or enough related that you have professional knowledge. You fit the mold that we experts can't stand it when our TV programs are so fake and unrealistic.

The reason you can't stand House (Dr. House) is exactly why so many people watch it (him). His character infuriates us! The emotional response he evokes is what makes many of us watch the program. Many of us want to see him slapped down. Many others are annoyed by the pompous people that infuriate Dr. House the most and want to see _them_ slapped down. Other people identify with House because they feel that they are good in their fields but don't get along with people that well, and feel that they are hampered by personal relations even though they know the best technical solutions. (I bet lots of computer experts feel that way.)

I think Dr. House is a character you love to hate. The series would be nothing without his character. All the other characters contrast with him. Thus the series name _House_.

Another series I don't watch anymore. I couldn't stand all the misery and then the :54 minute solution, just in time to run 6 more minutes of commercials. PF at least you had 55 minutes to do something more useful and less wasteful than watching the rest of the program.

Wikipedia says that as of Aug. 2010 Hugh Laurie (Dr. House) was the highest paid actor in a drama series on US television. (ref) I guess we know who the highest paid actor in a comedy series _was_ on US television. (ref) I'm sure the ratings are not only in dispute but also in flux.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 14, 2012)

buckytom said:


> hmmm, technically, that would probably be covered by the sports dept..



The Bichon Frise was such a chipper looking dog!  So cute.  Makes the cats mad when I watch the dog shows.


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 14, 2012)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> Thing with House is...I can diagnose most of his patients in the first 5 minutes and nail it 80% of the time.  I'm not really a doctor, I just play one at home.
> 
> I can't watch House, it makes me angry watching how he treats people.



I can't watch House.  He's a nasty jerk!  There are already too many IRL.

Bones and The Closer get way too silly to be entertaining.  I'll watch, but only if there is _nothing_ else on.


----------



## rozz (Feb 14, 2012)

I can't watch CSI. It's so wildly unrealistic. "Let's enhance this grainy, blurry CCTV security video to the point where we can clearly see the murderer in the reflection of the glasses the dead dude was wearing." Wait... wut? And the problem with the popularity of shows like that is that the average jury is *filled* with people who watch them, and thereby expect a standard of proof that's all but impossible to deliver.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

rozz said:


> I can't watch CSI. It's so wildly unrealistic. "Let's enhance this grainy, blurry CCTV security video to the point where we can clearly see the murderer in the reflection of the glasses the dead dude was wearing." Wait... wut? And the problem with the popularity of shows like that is that the average jury is *filled* with people who watch them, and thereby expect a standard of proof that's all but impossible to deliver.



That's two good points! First, the idea that you can just keep enhancing and enhancing and enhancing until you finally get the detail you need. Star Trek started that bogus idea. Now CSI is continuing it. The reality is that whatever grain your film has or whatever the pixel size of your video image has, places a limit on how much information is stored in the image. It is possible to make an image appear somewhat less grainy but it's impossible to just keep deblurring and zooming and expect to get any detail you want if you keep at it long enough. That's just fake.

And you're right that CSI and other crime shows are dumbing down the public particularly jury pools, leading them to expect impossibly perfect evidence. Real life isn't like that.


----------



## Steve Kroll (Feb 14, 2012)

rozz said:


> I can't watch CSI. It's so wildly unrealistic. "Let's enhance this grainy, blurry CCTV security video to the point where we can clearly see the murderer in the reflection of the glasses the dead dude was wearing." Wait... wut?


I haven't watched any of the CSI programs, but I've noticed similar things on other programs. For example, all of the computers people use on television seem to be magical wonders of technology. In fact, they almost always use technologies that haven't been invented yet. Watch Hawaii Five-O sometime for a good laugh. Apparently they are able to take a cell phone photo of a smudged fingerprint, beam it across the island into their table-sized tablet computer and, within 2-3 seconds (accompanied by a lot of high tech noises), link it to a satellite photograph of a suspect living somewhere in the jungles of Singapore.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

I'm surprised they didn't just shoot the print from the cellphone and have an App pop up the perpetrator's picture, full biography and current location including a real time satellite image of exactly what he's doing at the present moment. With audio!  (That satellite audio technology is very tricky...)

I used to watch the original Hawaii Five-O, tried to watch one of the new episodes for about five minutes and couldn't stand that. Call that five minutes of zero interest instead of Five-O. It was ridiculous to cast pretty boys as the lead characters, in this and in many shows. What are character actors doing for employment these days? Just playing bad guys? I bet if Karl Malden was alive these days and wanted a job these days he'd be stuck playing a baddie.

(In _Streets of San Francisco_ they paired character actor Malden with Michael Douglas as the good looking young guy, giving the series' protagonists balance.)


----------



## Steve Kroll (Feb 14, 2012)

Gourmet Greg said:


> I used to watch the original Hawaii Five-O, tried to watch one of the new episodes for about five minutes and couldn't stand that. Call that five minutes of zero interest instead of Five-O. It was ridiculous to cast pretty boys as the lead characters, in this and in many shows.


To tell the truth, I've never noticed the pretty boys on that show. I watch it mostly for the pretty (and often bikini-clad) girls.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

That's one problem with many present day TV programs, that all the characters look like they could have been fashion models. (Probably many of them have worked as models in the past.) It's another unrealistic part of most TV programs today. They substitute style for substance, they substitute special effects instead of interesting plots. They have gloss instead of substance.


----------



## rozz (Feb 14, 2012)

I worry about the long-term effects of hiring actors based on their looks. In 30 years, who will be our established actors, playing the post-ingenue roles? No one coming up in Hollywood seems to possess the necessary gravitas to age well and portray serious adult roles with any sense of believability.


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 14, 2012)

rozz said:


> I worry about the long-term effects of hiring actors based on their looks. In 30 years, who will be our established actors, playing the post-ingenue roles? No one coming up in Hollywood seems to possess the necessary gravitas to age well and portray serious adult roles with any sense of believability.




Don't worry.  The public will get what they want because they control ticket sales.  Pretty boys are everywhere because pretty boys sell tickets.


----------



## rozz (Feb 14, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> Don't worry. The public will get what they want because they control ticket sales. Pretty boys are everywhere because pretty boys sell tickets.


 
I work in a library. That's enough to worry me about the general public making important decisions like that.


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 14, 2012)

rozz said:


> I work in a library. That's enough to worry me about the general public making important decisions like that.




If not the people who pay the bills, who?


----------



## rozz (Feb 14, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> If not the people who pay the bills, who?


 
Casting agents keep serving up actors based on their abs, and not their acting chops. The public is not actually given a fair shot to use their money as their vote. They're not likely to stop going to the movies, so their keep reinforcing the idea that looks are the most important attribute an actor may possess.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

The public votes by whatever they watch. Nielsen's and other rating services measure audience size. Advertising charges are based upon the ratings. The TV program producers do whatever they can to get high ratings so they can get high revenue. The way it ends up is that the lowest common denominator in the public gets to pick what the shows are like. That would probably be children, teens and young adults. They probably would rather look at pretty faces than have mentally stimulating programs. I doubt if much of the public cares if anything is realistic. I doubt if much of the public has any real comprehension of scientific or other reality (such as police and crime lab procedure).


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 14, 2012)

rozz said:


> Casting agents keep serving up actors based on their abs, and not their acting chops. The public is not actually given a fair shot to use their money as their vote. They're not likely to stop going to the movies, so their keep reinforcing the idea that looks are the most important attribute an actor may possess.




Casting agents respond to specific requests from producers.  If a producer asks for a middle-aged man with ordinary features and the agent sends them a twenty YO stud, they won't be in business long.

If you're middle aged or older, you are no longer the target audience because marketing studies prove you don't spend as much as the 18-35 age group.

I would be perfectly happy watching shows and movies that don't include special effects and supernatural creatures but my opinion doesn't count.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 14, 2012)

you guys would be amazed at how nielsen and other ratings services work from a technological point if view.

hey, maybe they can do a show about me getting to the bottom of bad shows getting good ratings. television ratings investigator: nyc.

i think brad pitt and tom cruise are too short to play me. maybe kurt russel, if he makes a comeback. i kinda looked like him 20 years ago...


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> If you're middle aged or older, you are no longer the target audience because marketing studies prove you don't spend as much as the 18-35 age group.



I think that has a lot to do with my dissatisfaction with today's television drama/comedy programming, that I'm not in the age group the shows are targeted at.

I'm glad age has nothing to do with TV cooking shows.


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 14, 2012)

I gave up situation comedies many years ago.  I just don't relate at all.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

I can't watch any of this stuff. Can't watch the comedies, can't watch the dramas. I'm down to news (and not much of that because it's so depressing), cooking programs, documentaries... Too bad I'm not a sports fan, there's lots of that. (I can understand why some like sports and one thing that's really great about sports is that it appeals to sports fans of all ages.)

I mostly read in the evenings due to lack of anything interesting on the tube. I hope to get cable/satellite one day soon where hopefully the wider range of shows will have more that appeal to me.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 14, 2012)

lol, greg. don't hold your breath.

actually, there will be a lot more shows for you to have a strong, verbose opiniin about that you don't watch.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

I'm looking forward mostly to cooking, science, history channels and similar. I don't have to watch the comedies and dramas if they don't appeal to me. I think I'd rather rent movies via Netflix than get premium channels.

I'm sorry if I've insulted anybody's favorite TV programs. This topic has been more interesting than most TV dramas and comedies. (Oops, I did it again. )


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 14, 2012)

buckytom said:


> you guys would be amazed at how nielsen and other ratings services work from a technological point if view.
> 
> hey, maybe they can do a show about me getting to the bottom of bad shows getting good ratings. television ratings investigator: nyc.
> 
> i think brad pitt and tom cruise are too short to play me. maybe kurt russel, if he makes a comeback. i kinda looked like him 20 years ago...



Cool...


----------



## Barbara L (Feb 14, 2012)

buckytom said:


> ...i think brad pitt and tom cruise are too short to play me. maybe kurt russel, if he makes a comeback. i kinda looked like him 20 years ago...


Nope. You are better looking than him any day of the week (and I think he's good looking!).  You've got those killer eyes!    And I'm not talking about your Homer avatar!


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 14, 2012)

I'll always think of BT as "Homey."  I know few people who have chosen such appropriate avatars.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 15, 2012)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I do believe in the suspension of disbelief long enough to watch a show for the entertainment value.  But, there are some shows where the characters are so odious that it is difficult to suspend disbelief and enjoy the show.
> 
> Personally, I'm enjoying the 136th Westminster Dog Show...now THAT is entertainment.



Yup, broke my disbelief suspenders a while ago (for most television). I can still find a pair or two for a good SF novel.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 15, 2012)

lol, geez, thanks barbara. does snake pliskin blush?


unfortunately, greg, i truely look more like homer nowadays.


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 15, 2012)

One thought occurs to me about the computers and other sci-fi equipment is that so many things that can be imagined can be done.

Think - two way wrist radio that Dick Tracy used.  Now phones with computer ability in a credit card size package, and the hands free blue tooth.  

What man can imagine, can and has often been done.  I don't think they are all that far fetched.

Many things that I have wished they would make have become everyday household items in my lifetime.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 15, 2012)

Where are our air cars?


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 15, 2012)

Think Cessna.

I think technology will catch up with fiction, look at the touch screen technology already available.

The internet and credit/debit cards were sci-fi not all that long ago.

Except for things like time travel, and faster than light travel...


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 15, 2012)

I do think Cessna. I'm an amateur pilot and I trained in Cessnas (and Pipers). I shudder to think of typical citizens like I see on the streets and highways operating aircraft. If they ever have flying cars then I hope to God that the flight controls are totally sealed and inaccessible to the occupants of the aircraft except for selection of a destination. Nothing can go wrong, can go wrong, can go wrong... 

At least in US the government seems to be pushing us into mass transit. We already have airborne mass transit, the airlines. I doubt personal aircraft will ever be practical for the masses, or at least not for many many decades or even centuries.

One good thing about my prediction is that I won't be here to be proven wrong! 


I'm even skeptical about self driving conventional cars, at least not for a few more decades. It is possible in theory of course but I think we are further away from that than most people believe. Even if it's simply for economical reasons, the added cost to equip vehicles with the package. Also I wonder about the practicality of having automated driving unless all cars on the road are automated. It seems to me that a mix of automated cars and the drivers I currently see on streets and highways would be a disaster begging to happen.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 15, 2012)

you just described florida, greg.

a mix of crazy drivers and old folks going slow snd steady, oblivious to everyone else, with their turn signal on for miles...


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Feb 15, 2012)

LOL BT, I just described America! I've never driven anywhere with more than two cars on the road that didn't have crazy, stupid, rude, incapable, oblivious, nasty or otherwise objectionable drivers. (I could include more adjectives...) It's human nature. Automobiles turn some people into monsters. Thank God they're mostly restricted to two dimensions. (I recall a TV news story several or a dozen years ago, "car into rooftop." Sadly, that is possible, at least it is in Los Angeles in a hilly neighborhood.)


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 15, 2012)

buckytom said:


> you just described florida, greg.
> 
> a mix of crazy drivers and old folks going slow snd steady, oblivious to everyone else, with their turn signal on for miles...




Don't forget the snowbirds.  People from everywhere else driving differently from each other.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 15, 2012)

that's true, zhi.

the reason i don't mind driving in nyc is that everyone is equally aggressive all the time. the painted lane lines on the streets are only suggestions, lol. and i've been known to use the sidewalk every now and then to get around a street blocked by a garbage or delivery truck.


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 15, 2012)

I lived on a beach in Florida for many years.  When I started to see lots of different states' license plates, I'd automatically drop back an additional 2 car lengths.  Imagine a right lane snowbird making a 8 lane crossing left turn!  Not at all uncommon.


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 15, 2012)

Good TV tonight for me.  Nature, Criminal Minds, CSI.  Hope they're better than last night's NCIS.  I felt embarassed for the actors.  Bad, stupid, ridiculous, idiotic.  Laughable indeed.


----------



## buckytom (Feb 15, 2012)

the new "survivor" just started.  the boy and i are waiting for dw to get home from the gym so we can watch it as a family.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 15, 2012)

Survivor night!


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Feb 16, 2012)

Gourmet Greg said:


> For example Horatio Caine in the Miiami show driving that tricked out Hummer. Come on! If I were a Miami taxpayer and this was real life I'd be screaming my head off at spending so much money just to drive an investigator to a crime scene.


 
If I remember correctly, I heard someone on CSI Miami say that a benevolent benefactor bought the CSI team their Hummers. They were not purchased with taxpayer money


----------

