Re: CSI Post-Grissom


"suzee" <suzee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:gli9kf$9qi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mason Barge wrote:

"suzee" <suzee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:glgufu$506$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
shawn wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:20:41 -0500, "Mason Barge"
<masonbarge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"shawn" <nanoflower@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:t7hmn41p01pvs0l55g42eqbju27vt9klmq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:44:33 -0500, "Mason Barge"
<masonbarge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Rich" <none@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j4udnRD0P6-aSOfUnZ2dnUVZ_j4AAAAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Mason Barge" <masonbarge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Ca2dnWZNvfamiefUnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

I thought CSI did a great job handling Grissom's departure. They
didn't try to replace him in any sense with Fishburne. The new skein
of an older employee (with a lot of specific expertise) trying to
learn skills as an entry-level CSI was fresh and engaging. They're
going to do what happens in real life, i.e. give the experienced good
employees a chance to move up the ladder a bit.

I'm also glad that they gave Lauren Smith so much additional airtime.
I think she's been really good so far.

My one quibble is that, in moving even more towards an
evenly-distributed ensemble drama, they shortchanged the crime
elements of the plot. Using criminal science to figure out the
cornmeal-timer was really good (and very much in keeping with the
basics of CSI).

The whole criminal-confession-explanation shortcut, however, was
sloppy and second-rate. It always is, unless the confessor is given a
REALLY good motive to confess.
Agreed. But that's television crime, they have to have a completely
uncoerced confession at the last 10 minutes, no matter how silly and
unreal it seems.
Not all shows. Law & Order can see tooth-and-nail defences or even
acquittals.
That's true. however, "Law & Order" is a show where the court process
always forms a significant part of the show so it makes sense for them
to have strong defences. On a show like "CSI" the court process forms
a very small part of the show and so only gets the occasional coverage
when the CSI members are called in to testify. Getting them to confess
in short order is all part of the magic of Hollywood. I doubt most
people actually believe that the real world works like what we see on
TV.
Well, I'm definitely in your camp. IMHO procedurals would be a lot better off letting the show resolve with an arrest based on solid evidence recovered by the investigators. If I were doing one, I'd add a five-second text message at the end, like "On January 18, in the Superior Court of Orange County, Guy Bad was convicted of two counts of crossposting in the second degree and was sentenced to ten years on alt.gossip.celebrities."

In fact, I dimly remember a show doing that, but verbally instead of in writing. Dragnet, maybe?

I think that's right. It's been ages since I've seen an episode but I
recall there being a card put up along with a voice over from Jack
Webb explaining the outcome of the case during the final moments of
each episode. That's a nice way to put a bow on the story and one that
I'm surprised no other show has picked up since then. Especially since
there seems to be an infinite supply of procedurals, which are the
perfect show for that type of closure to each story.

Dragnet was supposedly based on true crimes (in the LAPD) though, and these are fictional. So there's no real outcome except sometimes in the court scenes of L&O.

Yeah, but they still have to tie them up for a satisfactory fictional experience. There really isn't any difference between "based on a true story" and fiction, as far as plot dynamics.

When they're fictional characters they don't have an `afterword' as to what happens. Notice how movies based on true events will often give a `wrap up' that tells what happens to the actual people. Fictional movies don't.

Police procedurals -- talking specifically about this week's CSI episode -- do wrap up the plot, though. The point of the thread is that accomplishing this by having a suspect suddenly confess is poor, sloppy scriptwriting. They haven't properly planned to tie up all the plot points and so they resort to having the suspect do it, in an unrealistic speech.

All I'm suggesting is a better, and more realistic, device to show that the "good guys" have arrested the right suspect.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CSI Post-Grissom
    ... of an older employee trying to ... learn skills as an entry-level CSI was fresh and engaging. ... REALLY good motive to confess. ... There really isn't any difference between "based on a true story" and fiction, ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: CSI Post-Grissom
    ... of an older employee trying to ... learn skills as an entry-level CSI was fresh and engaging. ... REALLY good motive to confess. ... There really isn't any difference between "based on a true story" and fiction, ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: Silk
    ... find the completely unrealistic fictional portrayals of computers ... the film stuck to the real facts. ... factual even though the characters and storyline is fiction. ... details that have no importance to the plot and could easily have ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Silk
    ... find the completely unrealistic fictional portrayals of computers ... factual even though the characters and storyline is fiction. ... details that have no importance to the plot and could easily have ... a lawyer who sets out what the law is. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: CSI Post-Grissom
    ... of an older employee trying to ... learn skills as an entry-level CSI was fresh and engaging. ... REALLY good motive to confess. ... On a show like "CSI" the court process forms ...
    (rec.arts.tv)