What gets me about every single show that spotlights a “scientist” is said “scientist” is an expert in every single aspect of every science known to man.
Most of the scientists in my life are so specialized that we quake at a microscope that is not our own let alone a specialty beyond our knowledge.
However, on TV; virus extraction - got it; paleontology - got it; nuclear physics - got it. A bit of molecular biology - piece of cake! All with a generic “Ph.D”.
Damn, I must have gone to the wrong school.
Oh, and those labs with all the bottles of coloured liquids and plethora of interwoven glass wear, pipes
and tubing? Glad I missed those nightmares, I am far too clumsy to even be around them.
And I never saw anyone with boobs hanging out of a lab coat - NEVER!
Some of the scientists may have been mad, but they never lasted long. - so glad for that.
There is a strong element of intentional self-parody of the genre that is part of the show, the viewer is expected to wink at at it and have an internal chuckle.
And characterization cliches are cliches because they have story telling history, and they work. If you can act in a cliche role but still be a cool character, the average watcher not particularly interested in highbrow stuff will be entertained.
The science stuff stands out as bad for me also, but I think just because it is easier to frame against reality. All the characters play into their cliche tropes, but there really are humans that fit about any characterization. There is only one set of science facts though.
What really makes me sick is when they want to find out what some substance consists of, in real life they use something like this.
But that would be too boring for stupid TV viewers. Instead they use something like this. Which looks like a microwave oven glued to a 1990’s computer tower case. :rolleyes:
And yeah, about Abbey. Most lab techs I have met are way kooky tatted-out punk rockin’ chicks. Conversely, most kooky tatted-out punk chicks know a LOT about science! So at least they got that one right.
This is actually the show’s biggest asset, and it is at its best when it strictly sticks to the tried and true tropes. When they try to get clever or add nuance is when the show sucks (I stopped watching quite a while ago because of one particular storyline that tried to go outside the conventions).
The rougish hunk tries to win the approval of the tough but fair boss man. The nerdy guy falls for the offbeat brainy chick. These stories just work, and NCIS recognizes that and gives them to us without unnecessary distractions. It’s almost a deconstruction of the genre.
So I was whooshed? Sorry, I don’t watch much TV these days. About the only time I see it is when I am at my girlfriend’s building and we go down to the TV room. We watched a few eps of that show that my cousin and others seem to love and I just couldn’t stand it. Even as parody, it seems like kind of a weak sauce though. Between the laughable science and the stock characters I really was wondering WTF?
And the art direction… Labs just don’t look like that. Government offices just don’t look like that. And if they do, I want a tax cut. Talk about government waste!
Any characters in any TV show can be reduced to stereotypes, though is ‘offbeat brainy chick’ a common stereotype? Especially ‘offbeat, gothy, sexy brainy chick’? Criminal Minds has one, but that might well be a copy of NCIS. Ducky’s not a mad scientist - he chatters away but is most definitely sane. Apart from Gibbs, the other descriptions are just too general to mean anything.
The science is often terrible - like it is for all these crime procedural shows - but the characters work really well. They bounce off each other in a believable way. The plots are often character-led rather than plot-led, which is quite unusual.
Criminal Minds is just as bad as NCIS but I still love it. I don’t know how many times I’ve thought to myself “how the hell did they get a warrant to arrest/search that person’s home?”
I have to admit, one of the main things I like about NCIS is that Mark Harmon is some major league eye candy. But having spent 37 years as a federal employee, several of those working with classified materials in secure facilities, I just crack up with the way such a scenario is depicted.
Simple things like a folder being marked “Classified” - um, no, that word is pretty much meaningless. Coversheets specify the classification, from Confidential to Top Secret.
Then there’s dialog similar to this, which I’ve heard more than once on the show:
Random person: I can’t discuss that with you - you’re not read into Greasy Cheeselog.
Gibbs: Well then, read me into Greasy Cheeselog!
The notion of demanding to be read into a program is just laughably silly. I have to remind myself that the writers obviously have no clue about how this sort of thing really works.
But it doesn’t matter - I think the show is fun. I like the interplay between characters. I’ve found most storylines to be well-crafted. And there is Mark Harmon…
Criminal Minds cracks me up because it seems every time someone pulls an obscure diagnosis out of their butt, it turns out to be the correct answer. Have they ever guessed wrong?
And don’t get me started on the idiocy that is Bones…
Bones is the only one of the plethora of forensics shows that I can stomach, because it does not have the veneer of realism that the others affect. It lets you know that you are in a stylized, unreal universe, quite separate from this one. It succeeds precisely because it turns the science-idiocy up to 11, and because the characters (or most of them) are clearly exaggerated “types” (or slightly off-kilter versions of such) rather than real human beings.
Mind you, it took 3 or 4 viewings before I realized it could be appreciated on this sort of meta level - I certainly thought it was garbage at first viewing - and I don’t know whether most people who like it see it this way. I am fairly convinced, however, that its parodic qualities are not entirely unintentional.
Me, too. But I also love Hawaii Five-0 and have seen every episode of all 10 seasons of CSI: Miami, so I’m not really into “highbrow” TV. Formulaic crime show with at least one attractive male character is good enough for me. I say “That’s ridiculous” at least once an episode with all of these shows, but I don’t care.
Hawaii Five-O is a great example. In a realistic universe, McGarrett would end every episode in jail or in the hospital. But I don’t care; give me Grace Park in a bikini before the opening credits even finish, and I’m a happy viewer.
I find the inter-character dialog in NCIS to be a breath of fresh air compared to the other cops shows. The characters actually joke around and keep it pretty light, like real life. I’d kill myself before I worked in the CSI office, depression and darkness everywhere you turn.
I’m a recent viewer of NCIS. I never watched an original show until this year. My entry was to begin watching the reruns about two years ago on USA. I"ve seen almost all of the episodes and think that the interaction between the characters is delightful, the sense of humor exhibited by the writers is very good, and I’m never bored with the plot lines.
I must say that I’m disappointed in the 3-4 current episodes I watched this year. I think they did something to the characters that I don’t like, but I can’t put my finger on it. My one joy in life is viewing an old episode that I’ve never seen and saying-“aha, that’s how xxx or yyy happened” and what the result was.
