As I remember it, Adam-12 was designed (or at least that’s what Jack Webb, the producer, said) to show what (regular honest) cops really do when they’re in a patrol car - the range of incidents they deal with from trivial to life-threatening, the varied outcomes, and so on. He did, however, want to have a show that people would actually watch. Hence, virtually no paperwork.
Some cop shows do have a nod to the paperwork - at the end of the show, some unlucky stiff has to stay behind to do all the paperwork while everyone else goes out and has a beer together. Fade to black while the guy in shirtsleeves looks at a stack of papers on his desk.
Except isn’t it a matter of caseload, not technology? That is to say, the only reason a real CSI lab can’t do a DNA test in six hours is because there’s 100 other tests for other cases in line ahead of it.
Maybe they’re just using historical trial procedures. Trials used to proceed a lot faster, even for major cases.
Giuseppe Zangara attempted to kill Franklin Roosevelt on February 15, 1933 (and killed Chicago mayor Anton Cermak). He was arrested, indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced within weeks and executed on March 20.
Comedy is not necessarily the opposite of realism. For instance, I’ve read of doctors who’ve said that if you ignore the jokes, *Scrubs *was the most realistic hospital series ever made.
I think there are two different ways to to deal with this issue: one is to insist on “realism,” and as other posters are saying, in fiction that’s baloney. There’s nothing wrong with compressing time or the number of people you would really need to do a job. But that doesn’t mean a TV show about a profession has to distort that profession entirely. A TV show about lab workers who investigate crimes doesn’t have to show those people solving crimes and doing things they would clearly never do in the course of their jobs. One of the lazier tricks on Law & Order was having the prosecutors discover that someone had been wrongly convicted of a crime and investigate the crime themselves to prove the person’s innocence and free them while simultaneously working to convict the real killer. It was blatantly unrealistic and gave a sadly distorted picture of what prosecutors really do. You don’t have to do that kind of thing. It’s just a question of what the writers are interested in writing and what they consider interesting to their audience. An episode with 20 minutes of paperwork would be boring, but the cops on The Wire did have to do paperwork and clear old cases.
And most of that is the closing montage where sappy music plays while people learn something or other.
My cousin Alex, who actually is a lawyer in a DA’s office (Illinois state’s attorney in Chicago), says that the original Law & Order is fairly accurate on the legal side (he can’t speak to the cop side), but every case is a once-in-a-career case. And he doesn’t normally have as much forensic evidence as they had toward the end of the show, which was something they had to do to compete with CSI. And you don’t stand up and yell “Objection!” you just sit and say it; sometimes you don’t even look up. It has to be on the record, though, to be an issue for appeal, and that’s really what it’s for, not to get the jury to “unhear” the question.
I have this theory that little of what we saw on Scrubs was “actually” happening. The absurd stuff was all JD’s unicorn diary. (Okay, horse with a horn diary.) It was his way of handling stuff like Mrs. Landingham choosing to die rather than go on dialysis, or Mama Walton dying in a way that was clearly linkable to his not firing the incompetent intern, and so forth.
You’re never going to get anything completely accurate, so just strive for not completely facepalmingly inaccurate. Like don’t have your computer tech look up a suspect’s IP address and come back with a number starting in the 300 range (they only go up to 255!), but glossing over how much time stuff takes, or who does what, just to keep the show moving, that’s just practical and benefits the audience. If you’re too close to the material to accept it (like you work in that field) then just watch something else.
Next Wednesday, it will be shown in Craptastic HD on one of the 3 major networks around 9. I’m not sure what will be on the week after. Maybe a Charlie Brown Holiday Special?
“Our Ratings Suck Like Dyson, Charlie Brown!”
“Oh, Good Grief! This script couldn’t suck any worse if the beaches on The Entire West Coast of the United States were lined with Coke instead of Sand…”
“Cheer up, Charlie Brown! I happen to know that Peppermint Patty will do a threeway with you and Sally if you ask.”
“Arrrrgh! Good Grief, wasn’t there enough of that at Lucy & Marcie’s wedding…?”
“There are never enough threeways, Charlie Brown.”
That’s the word that’s been missing the whole discussion. "The appearance or semblance of truth; likelihood; probability: "
Verisimilitude is walking that fine line between the non-dramatic tedium of everyday life and the over-the-top stupidity of action movies. Good shows have verisimilitude; they feel real enough that you identify with and understand the compressed drama but don’t insult your intelligence by pretending this is moment by moment portrayal.
Shows like The Good Wife get praised even though they did a major murder trial every single week. A real trial can take years, almost all of it boring prep and waiting. Could a great team of writers make a five-year series out of one case? You might think so, but to make it watchable they’d have to fall back on the Boston Public syndrome mentioned above; they’d use up every dramatic behind-the-scenes incident from 100 real cases.
It’s like the difference between vaudeville and radio. A great routine could last 20 years in vaudeville; doing it once on radio killed it and a new great routine had to be written for the next week. Lots of careers died because of this.
I’d argue that the OP is wrong in another way. CSI started as a fine example of verisimilitude. That’s exactly what made it so successful. People believed in it. It had to keep topping itself so it went over that fine line, but they got away with it for many extra years exactly because it had built up such a residue of belief.
