I was doing something else, so I left the TV on, and tuned to CBS, after watching “Survivor.” I thus ended up watching both “Criminal Minds,” which I’ve seen before but have never watched regularly, and “CSI,” which I watched the first couple of seasons before it occurred to me that CS techs wouldn’t be involved in questioning suspects, at which point I could no longer suspend disbelief and the show became unwatchable.
“Criminal Minds”: 25 years after his wife and kid were killed, the man convicted of the killing was released from prison. For tenuous reasons, this was done on the sole say-so of a regular character, who then championed him even after the guy went out and killed someone else within 51 hours of being released. All of this setup left all of about 20 minutes for the gang to figure out who the real bad guy was – a politician, whose campaign fundraiser they crashed en masse to arrest him based on, admittedly, zero actual evidence.
Okay.
“CSI”: Naive minor character has a hot babe throw herself at him. Obviously she’s up to something. She turns out to be a burlesque dancer (so much classier than a stripper, no?), and the whole bizarre case the naive guy is investigating when the babe had come into the lab on a tour and fall for him at first sight. Anyway, that case, which involved people getting electrocuted and left in the desert, turns out to be about the grandchild of one person involved in a murder back in Bugsy Siegel’s day taking revenge against the descendents of the perpetrators of that murder. (Difference from other show was that this time, the person wrongly convicted had been executed.)
Are these shows always this completely fucking stupid?
Both shows were repeats tonight. I don’t remember that Criminal Minds episode so it must not have made much of an impression. I do remember that CSI episode, pure stunt casting.
I think I remember that CSI episode. One part that I found unbelievable was that they would allow a tour group into a room where they were processing evidence from a current investigation. (Also, as you mentioned, how implausible it is that the CSI techs get to interrogate the suspects.)
I think any crime procedure drama that doesn’t allow the main characters to drive the plot but tries to top itself with more elaborate/shocking crimes by more fiendishly evil Chessmaster killers is going to end up painting itself into a corner sooner or later.
In many instances, in order to force some of the plot points to happen, the writers have to start handing out Idiot Balls to the characters.
Of course, I don’t watch Criminal Minds for the crimes or the criminals but for the utterly delicious men and the hysterical, underplayed character interactions.
That’s the problem with these procedural shows. They don’t have any character depth. So the first couple of episodes they can introduce the characters but after that those characters just keep doing the exact same thing week after week. If it wasn’t for a different crime every week the episodes would be interchangeable.
The shows ARE that completely effing stupid. Ask my BIL. He is a CSI.
Quickest way I can think of to piss him off is to ask him what he thought of this week’s (insert crime procedural show of your choice).
I agree that they’re awful - and Criminal Minds veers into WTF territory more than it should, but like Phouka, i ain’t watching those shows for the genius writing.
Who cares about that when you can gaze upon the likes of the fine piece of man-candy that is Shemar Moore. And i just want to take Matthew Gray Gubler home and finish raising him.
They did have the scratches on his arm, and the suspects DNA from under the fingernails of his last victim. Very flimsy evidence.
What I didn’t get is WHY the evil politician went around killing the other two in the first place. The wrongly convicted doctor did not know who really did it, there was no evidence against them, he is smart enough to rise up in politics, yet he goes around killing people?
Actually, he was not a serial killer, and that was the worst mistake in this episode. He was killing people to silence them. He was NOT killing for the sport of it. I would say he was a mass murderer for killing the doctor’s family, but there was no evidence that he killed again.
those forensic shows are dumb IMHO. that opinion based on watching bits and pieces of them when other people are viewing.
the science and lab procedure and processes are unreal. without knowing much of law enforcement, lots of that seems wrong.
without watching much of those forensic show i would say Bones is the best. better nonscience character interaction there too.
one thing i like, though not enough to watch any show for, is the computer animation. computer animation on forensic science even though maybe bogus is cool. i would go for and watch clip reels of that from these shows.
Yes - that particular episode of Criminal Minds was not one of the better ones - Criminal Minds I wouldn’t generally call a “CSI” or a show tht is about the law enforcement side of it as much as (the better episodes anyway) more of a horror/thriller show - they have done some episodes that were downright disturbing given the hour they usually work them in - and, in general, they do a better job of ‘keeping it real’ where affects from one episode will carry on thruout the rest of the series (or alteast for a long enough time to show that the events have real impact to the team).
CSI started out being pretty smart - probably too smart - and got dumbed way down - this is especially apparent after Grissom left - which, coincidentally, is when I pretty much quit watching it.
yes, they all take liberties with Computer capabilities and forensic tech - thats a given in the timeconstraint, keep the viewer interested kind of hings - here again, I think that Criminal Minds does a little better job at keeping it realistic compared to others.
Herein lies the answer to your question. Don’t try to over-analyze the shows, as they don’t stand up well to scrutiny. Plus, they ran out of story ideas long ago and they’re recycling and reaching into the bucket of absurd. Just enjoy the eye candy.
There is a very early episode (early first season) where someone goes into a room and starts to turn on a light and Grissom stops them saying “I want the room left exactly the way the killer left it”. They seem to have stuck with that.
The only “real” explanations I’ve seen anyone come up with is 1) it makes it easier to see anything revealed by their magic UV lights and 2) the flashlights will cause small items to cast shadows on the floor in the dark making them easier to spot.
But I suspect the real reason is that it’s just a stylistic decision.
I like it when they use the flashlights in teh fully lit areas - but then it becomes something I think that works there too - it helps them focus into a ‘smaller’ area when looking for things.
I’m embarrassed to admit, it never occurred to me that real-life burlesque dancer Dita Von Teese would play a character who eventually turned out to be, er, a burlesque dancer. I guess that I thought that Von Teese was trying to establish a regular acting career by specifically choosing a role that didn’t have anything to do with burlesque. It turns out, though, at least according to her Wikipedia entry, that she’s not particularly interested in acting; she’ll take a part if it feels right, but it’s not her ultimate goal.
You intentionally watch “Survivor”, and then criticize other shows for being dumb? I’d try to answer your points, but my mind is too busy boggling.
Actually though, I’ve been known to watch CSI: Miami just for the laughs. One of these days, that guy (David Caruso?) is going to pull off his sunglasses to reveal a smaller pair of sunglasses underneath, ala Rex Kramer.
