I’ve now watched at least a few episodes of all three series, having binged the first three episodes of Patience this past Sunday.
My take:
I enjoy High Potential, though as noted, it’s not “realistic” – but that’s not what I’m looking for out of non-documentary TV shows (and I’m not a big fan, in general, of police procedurals). I like the character of Morgan, and that she has had a struggle with living up to the expectations which were placed on her due to her extreme intelligence. I guess that she’s neurodivergent, from the standpoint of the fact that she is so intelligent, but I don’t have the sense that she is on the autism spectrum; she’s just quirky and a bit defensive and abrasive. If anything, I think that her character is closer to one like Shawn Spencer in Psych: someone who solves cases by virtue of being super-smart and super-observant.
I’ve watched a few episodes of Elsbeth with my parents. Apparently (much like Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory), she’s clearly coding as neurodivergent, without ever formally stating it. I’m not a big fan of the show, based on what I’ve seen so far, mostly because I find all of her quirkiness annoying rather than endearing.
Patience is a very different show, compared to the other two. They come right out and say that Patience is neurodivergent, and I think that the actress does a good job of portraying someone whose brain works differently, and is uncomfortable with social interactions, without playing it for laughs. She’s observant and intelligent, but not magically so, and she even makes mistakes.
I like it. Carrie Preston is able to bring some emotional depth to the character when needed. Much of the humor comes from how the guest stars react to her quirkiness. I can see how people wouldn’t like it but I find it to be lighthearted fun. It’s certainly not high art.
Absolutely none of these types of shows hold up to scrutiny since consulting detective is not a real thing. I don’t care if Elsbeth is there as a lawyer under a DOJ consent decree, she wouldn’t be allowed in a crime scene and couldn’t question suspects. I don’t care if Rick Castle is friends with the mayor, he wouldn’t be allowed to be a fake detective for 8 years. They are all equally implausible. It’s just a matter of if it entertains you.
I do find it interesting that two of the shows mentioned in the OP were adapted from French shows. Is this a specific trend in France and where did it start?
Yeah, it’s a show that knows exactly what it is. One of my favorite eps had Laurie Metcalf playing a smug entitled asshole star of a cop show who killed her coworker. It was full of little meta in-jokes about cop shows, and shows with weird pairings between cops and non-cops, in general.
Is there supposed to be in Cafe Society? We are simply discussing these types of shows. Many other posters got the idea.
Barney Miller- considered by most to be the most realistic cop show ever- was super entertaining. The Rookie, which certainly compresses a years worth of action into a couple episodes is also a solid police procedura;. The Wire. Brokenwood Mysteries. NYPD Blue. None of which depend upon a succession of rich smart but stupid murderers. Patience, as I postet, is also quite good and realistic.
Most posters here agree High Potential is not realistic- but they like it anyway, which is fine. I liked Star Trek too.
Johnny Carson voice- “I did not know that!”
Maybe back in Victorian days or even pre-WWII, when police professionalism and scientific forensics were not so common.
Yeah you mention that a lot. Who is this most you talk about? Barney Miller was a great show. Still watchable today. It did a decent job of showing the interaction between co-workers. But realistic? It’s a sitcom. Life isn’t a sitcom. NYPD captains command units or precincts of upwards of 100 officers. Not 5 guys in a small office. That’s just the beginning. Cops (old ones anyway) might say it was the most realistic because they liked the interactions and because the cop shows at the time were really bad for the most part.
The Rookie? The integration of body worn cameras is well done. Everything else? Laughably unrealistic. You seem to be hung up on realism with no understanding of what is realistic. Real life is boring. That’s why we have fiction. Every crime show whether it’s a procedural or a Holmesian consulting detective is not going to be true to life. They don’t have to be true to life to entertain. Better if they are not.
In case you are wondering what are the closest to reality I would pick one you mentioned The Wire. Not that it was 100% accurate but it did a good job of showing that most cops aren’t either superheroes or corrupt criminals. They are mostly just people trying to get by as best they can. I can’t speak for the criminal side of it. I’ve never been Omar. Homicide: Life of the Street was also very true to life at least in the beginning. As it progressed it got away being an actual procedural and went to being a murder a week solve in 45 minutes show like so many others. Of course both of those had David Simon in common who had a background in journalism and non-fiction books. Still not what I would call realistic but as close as possible while still being entertaining.
Arthur Conan Doyle pretty much invented the idea of a consulting detective. To this day police will use consultants. But those are people with very specific specialties like cybersecurity or forensic accounting. Someone brought in to act as a detective like Cordelia Cupp or Benoit Blanc is a fantasy. In the past in the absence of formal law enforcement groups like the Pinkertons did exist. Although they called themselves a detective agency they were more like mercenaries working for company owners.
Captain Miller also commanded two other shifts of detectives, plus the uniforms on the other floors.
Barney Millerretains a devoted following among real-life police officers, who appreciate the show’s emphasis on dialog and believably quirky characters, and its low-key portrayal of cops going about their jobs. In a 2005 op-ed for the New York Times, New York police detective Lucas Miller wrote:
> Real cops are not usually fans of cop shows. […] Many police officers maintain that the most realistic police show in the history of television was the sitcom Barney Miller, […] The action was mostly off screen, the squad room the only set, and the guys were a motley bunch of character actors who were in no danger of being picked for the N.Y.P.D. pin-up calendar. But they worked hard, made jokes, got hurt and answered to their straight-man commander. For real detectives, most of the action does happen off screen, and we spend a lot of time back in the squad room writing reports about it. Like Barney Miller’s squad, we crack jokes at one another, at the cases that come in, and at the crazy suspect locked in the holding cell six feet from the new guy’s desk. Life really is more like Barney Miller than NYPD Blue, but our jokes aren’t nearly as funny.[25]
I’m commenting on your comments. If you don’t want them commented on then don’t comment. Or don’t comment on my comments to your comments.
In all the comments my point might be lost. If realism is what you are looking for don’t watch cop shows. Even those that are closest to reality aren’t very realistic. Especially the sitcoms.
Can’t watch Elspeth. She annoys me too much. I like High Potential and like the character.
We’re watching Patience, but we’ve watched the entire Astrid et Raffaelle (the original French series) and loved it. Patience pales in comparison. Plus, they’re doing all the same basic plots, but the last one was changed in a way that made it really stupid. If you’re going to do a police procedural can’t you at least make the murder-solving more interesting and less stupid? Also, maybe because the actress is autistic, the emphasis on the show seems a bit out of balance. It’s like a public service announcement filled out to a full TV show length. The police detective, Bea, is weak, too.
Professor T is another show that originated in Europe (Belgium, this time), and I loved it. I couldn’t get into the English re-make at all. I usually like Ben Miller, but he wasn’t right for the role. They tried to do similar surreal interstitials but they just didn’t work like they did in the Belgain version.
I’ve been watching some Elementary episodes, and it occurs to me that there is a type of consulting detective in the real world: psychics.
If real police departments can consult them, why couldn’t they hire detectives based in our plane of existence? Like Sherlock. Were either real people, I’d rather hire him than The Stupendous Yappi.
I agree with all of this. Loved Astrid, lukewarm to Patience. Loved the original Belgian Professor T, indifferent to the British version with Ben Miller – even though I spent time in Cambridge and love to identify various settings.
I also completely agree with this:
and
Both of these are two of my favorite true-to-life crime shows.
Haven’t seen Elsbeth or High Potential, so obviously no opinion on those.
That is rare, and the results are vague. “Near water”?
But there have been consulting detectives in the past- Allan Pinkerton, Eugène-François Vidocq (he was consulting before he became the head of the Surete, and also afterwards), Kate Warne, Edmond Locard, etc. But they were all in the past. No modern examples.
Note that Patience does work for the York Police, in charge of the records dept, so she was vetted, etc.
Some stupid departments have consulted psychics. As I mentioned earlier police do use consultants. Consultants are not the same as “Consulting Detectives.” Consultants are used for their specific expertise. Consulting Detectives get to walk all over the crime scene, interview suspects and go off on their own to investigate. All without damaging the case. Ever since Sherlock it’s become one of the most common tropes in TV and film. Patrick Jane. Benoit Blanc, Cordelia Cupp, Lucifer Morningstar, Rick Castle… it makes for fun TV.
Fun fact: on several occasions we consulted with NFL films. They are based in New Jersey and have some of the most advanced video equipment in the world. We used them to try and enhance video to varying levels of success. Most of the time the original source was not good enough to get anything useful out of it.
