10 things about the entertainment industry that piss me off

[punisher73]

I have sat in many court cases when I was assigned to our court transport division. There were alot of cases where the Prosecuting Attorney had to do a lot of talking about the CSI effect and how that isn't real science on how crime labs work. It is a frustrating thing when an attorney can cast doubt on no "forensic science" linking their client even though there is tons of other evidence that supports the charge and juries buy into it because all of the early CSI shows talked that it was "real police science".

I used to watch it in the early years, but then they went to fantasy land, even too much for my suspension of disbelief when they pulled a 20 year old fingerprint off a piece of exposed metal on a chimmey.

 

[Sukerkin]

I hear the same old song and dance about the film industry. It gets tiring. The last time I looked it wasn't mandatory to watch tv or pay money to see a movie at the theater.

What's the matter, Tames? You seem unreasonably grumpy about this. You don't work in television drama by any chance?

Let the fellow air his gripes for crying out loud; it's not manditory to read posts either you know . If you disagree then that's fine but don't rob the fellow of his chance to let the steam out .

I happen to agree that those creating fiction should do what they can to make it that touch more 'real' but also agree that most people wouldn't notice. I do empathise tho' that when it is a popular format (e.g. cop show) that some professionals, who actually work in that area of expertise, will have their enjoment marred by factual errors.

 

[crushing]

Television is a great medium for the distribution of memes that support agendas.

Some recurring programming memes in TV law enforcement dramas-

Federal is good. Local is inept at best, but often just plain corrupt.
Amendment II is only for nutjobs that think the BOR applies to the people and defines the limitations on government.
Amendment IV is only for people with something to hide, good people don't ask to see a warrant.
Trains good, planes bad.

It's about ratings, right? People don't want to see a more realistic portrayal of law enforcement, that's why the show Cops never gained any popularity.

 

[Tez3]

Television is a great medium for the distribution of memes that support agendas.

Some recurring programming memes in TV law enforcement dramas-

Federal is good. Local is inept at best, but often just plain corrupt.
Amendment II is only for nutjobs that think the BOR applies to the people and defines the limitations on government.
Amendment IV is only for people with something to hide, good people don't ask to see a warrant.
Trains good, planes bad.

It's about ratings, right? People don't want to see a more realistic portrayal of law enforcement, that's why the show Cops never gained any popularity.

Not sure about the trains good, planes bad one, there's been a fair few train disaster films made.

 

[Paloma]

I can sympathize, but from a different point of view. I'm currently working toward becoming one of those "dweebs from the crime lab", and shows like CSI and Bones don't have our stuff right either.
On the bright side, hundreds of young people are going to be exposed to this, and want to go into forensic science, which will increase demand for courses in universities, and thus, more job opportunities for me in a couple years. Three cheers for the silver lining?

 

[Steve]

I'm not sure my original post came through as intended. I wasn't criticizing the OP's rant, but I was on an ipad, and so my post was a little short and may have come off as smart alecky. I'm sure the items were all accurate, and I'm no different from the OP. I get frustrated when I notice certain things, too.

What I'd like to point out is that storytelling is an art, and to tell a story the director, producer and screenwriter need to cut to the chase. Showing a detailed, accurate account of a SWAT team handling a situation might be compelling to a SWAT team member. But it's missing a lot of things that move the story forward. TV shows in particular HAVE to develop a shorthand with their audience in order to have a coherent story unfold in 40 minutes, for a 60 minute show, or 20 minutes for a 30 minute show. That's not a lot of time. That means that the audience needs to know certain things within minutes of the open, and by the first commercial break, they HAVE to have made some progress with the plot.

As such, again, particularly in TV, but also often seen in genre films, the screen writers will take advantage of the prevailing shorthand (aka the cliches you guys notice). Yeah, they're there. The screen writers probably DO know that most of them are bogus, but ultimately, they could spend 10 minutes of broadcast time basically training the audience about what an ACTUAL SWAT team in action is doing, or they can spend one minute allowing the audience to fill in the blanks based on common, popular, pre-established storytelling conventions.

Another common trick for writers is to combine people or to split up one person into several. In other words, on a real crime scene you might have one guy who typically does 8 things, but they need to show that ALL of those 8 things are happening at once, so they'll split it up. Or, conversely, if several tasks are typically done by people in 8 different departments, they might make one character who does it all... jack of all trades sort of thing. This can take 8 uninteresting secondary characters and turn him or her into one multi-faceted, interesting main character.

Once again, the main point of all video, whether it's fiction or non-fiction, is to tell a story. And real world accuracy is only important to the story if it is intrinsically part of the story.

Now, there is a point where over use of cliches becomes lazy storytelling, and I think those guys should be raked over the coals!

Just my two cents.

 

[Tgace]

The thing I tell college kids about forensics degrees is that, in our part of the country, a degree in forensics will get you a job in a lab....not a job were you carry a gun and/or visit crime scenes.

CSI's here are cops assigned to evidence collection teams. You have to become an LEO and work your way into the unit. The majority of them have no degree in forensics....they get their training once assigned.

YMMV in your part of the nation....but here a forensic degree may get you a job in the county lab swabbing for DNA or identifying drugs.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

Playing fast and loose with things like job assignments and procedure is one thing..I agree Steve, "CSI" as a show would suck if shown authentically. BUT simple things like proper salutes, uniforms, gun handling, etc is an easy thing to do realisally. Take my first point, WHY do so many in the entertainment industry stick to that stupid "racking meme"? We carry our pistols loaded. If they want to show the officers as "preparing for action" they can show a chamber check (even then thats a rarity but at least its realistic). Keeping your finger off of the trigger like that movie poster? Stupid simple....

There are many things they could do to be more authentic that take nothing from the story and add nothing to expense. I think its either laziness or ignorance. Like I said upthread..there ARE some shows who are pretty authentic (at least not "stupid inaccurate")..and they stand out because of it.

 

[jks9199]

The thing I tell college kids about forensics degrees is that, in our part of the country, a degree in forensics will get you a job in a lab....not a job were you carry a gun and/or visit crime scenes.

CSI's here are cops assigned to evidence collection teams. You have to become an LEO and work your way into the unit. The majority of them have no degree in forensics....they get their training once assigned.

YMMV in your part of the nation....but here a forensic degree may get you a job in the county lab swabbing for DNA or identifying drugs.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Same way at most of the agencies I know of here in Virginia. Crime scene work is done by cops with specialized training; some of the larger agencies have standing, dedicated units, but many agencies just use officers who have received specialized training. I don't know of too many places with civilian crime scene specialists... The closest I can think of are the ME's investigators -- and they require a lot of specialized training...

 

[Steve]

Playing fast and loose with things like job assignments and procedure is one thing..I agree Steve, "CSI" as a show would suck if shown authentically. BUT simple things like proper salutes, uniforms, gun handling, etc is an easy thing to do realisally. Take my first point, WHY do so many in the entertainment industry stick to that stupid "racking meme"? We carry our pistols loaded. If they want to show the officers as "preparing for action" they can show a chamber check (even then thats a rarity but at least its realistic). Keeping your finger off of the trigger like that movie poster? Stupid simple....

There are many things they could do to be more authentic that take nothing from the story and add nothing to expense. I think its either laziness or ignorance. Like I said upthread..there ARE some shows who are pretty authentic..and they stand out because of it.

Well, in some cases, it's for dramatic effect. Racking the weapon is just dramatic and looks cool. It's like a flourish with a sword or a kip up in a martial arts fight. Just a little addition for dramatic effect.

Poor salutes and sloppy costuming are lame.

But in your list of shows, most were feature length films which are about twice as long as the typical 60 minute TV script. They also have much larger budgets for everything from costume to sound editing to talent. The Wire is an HBO show, and they also have larger budgets and are recorded/edited much more like a feature film and with a bigger budget than a network TV show. Not excuses. Just sharing my perspective.

The shows you guys are hitting the most are weekly, network tv shows like Bones, Castle and CSI. They're built around the characters and they have to fit certain elements into every single episode on a budget that makes the network happy.

Ultimately, I'm not saying anyone's wrong or right. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions. Just sharing an alternative point of view.

 

[Tgace]

And then there's the "taser knockout"..you know, where someone zapped by the taser is knocked out for 10 minutes.

Do people really still think that?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[jks9199]

Apparently. Kinda scary huh.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Well, in some cases, it's for dramatic effect. Racking the weapon is just dramatic and looks cool. It's like a flourish with a sword or a kip up in a martial arts fight. Just a little addition for dramatic effect.

Poor salutes and sloppy costuming are lame.

But in your list of shows, most were feature length films which are about twice as long as the typical 60 minute TV script. They also have much larger budgets for everything from costume to sound editing to talent. The Wire is an HBO show, and they also have larger budgets and are recorded/edited much more like a feature film and with a bigger budget than a network TV show. Not excuses. Just sharing my perspective.

The shows you guys are hitting the most are weekly, network tv shows like Bones, Castle and CSI. They're built around the characters and they have to fit certain elements into every single episode on a budget that makes the network happy.

Ultimately, I'm not saying anyone's wrong or right. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions. Just sharing an alternative point of view.

Well...if you have to rely on inaccurate and pointless weapon manipulation to have "drama" then you need a better script writer. What's the cost of teaching an actor how to properly grip a handgun? And how much drama do you loose by not having your hero cock a pistol with no hammer?

And just because its not a major motion picture is no excuse IMO...they have a budget for guns, costumes and what else...this is a matter of a handling the equipment you already have. What is the big hurdle?

I often wonder if these entertainment producers actually know anything about the topic? Do they know that the gun the character carries has no safety to forget about? Are these intentional? What is lost by being accurate in your shows weapon handling?


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Tom, how many 'average people' understand things like weapons without safeties? Hell, I challenge the average person to tell the difference between a 9mm and a 45. They just aren't that knowledgeable.

Then there's the discussion I had a few weeks back, about how a reenactor was working on his uniform and wanted to be sure he had all the parts historically correct. He was looking up significant events in a timeline to be certain that everything right down to the stiching was period-correct.

Oh, did I forget to mention....he was going to a convention as a Jaffa from Stargate.

Realism in tv shows depends on your perspective. You know guns.

Friend of mine is a tank nut. You want to know something about tanks, he knows them. Cold. He's so geeky he'll tell you the name of the guy who put the last nut on the last tiger during WW2.
Went on a huge tear about how the historic inaccuracies in Patton just ruined the film for him....little things like using US tanks as German ones, cars that were a few years 'too soon', etc.
I just enjoyed the movie enough to buy it on vhs, dvd and BR.

Sometimes, we 'know too much' I think. Then we can't appreciate Hero because we're looking for the wires too hard.

namaste.

 

[Tgace]

True..of course Im continuing this conversation because the topic interests me.

Then again Bob there is an aspect of drama and authenticity that is added when your characters are manipulating their props correctly. There's a weekly TV show called Southland that is noted for its accuracy (IMO) and then there are your other weekly shows that go "rack happy" with every gun they draw. Id wager that your most weapon ignorant viewer would notice something "different" about the way the actors handle their props. I posit that even people who are ignorant of weaponcraft can sense when a character appears to REALLY know what he/she is doing. IMO its an easy fix that can do nothing but add to the production at minimal expense.

 

[Tgace]

Here's some more:

-Heroes displaying weapons as threats
-Walking up and putting a gun right in someone's face.
-Tumbling with a loaded weapon...diving into a room, forward rolls into cover (when they even bother with cover) etc.
-10 minute gunfights with nobody but some exploding cars getting hit.
-Automatic fire making a straight path of holes across a wall
-Full auto used to mow down villains standing in a neat row
-Bullet strikes causing someone to shake around violently like they were having a seizure.
-The shotgun blast that makes people fly 20' backwards
-The magnum handgun that makes people fly
-The 9mm pistol that makes people fly
-The single shot that causes a car to explode
-The shot that causes a helicopter to explode
-People with really big guns will outshoot everyone else... only because they have the really big gun. These same people are the ones who don't need to look for cover, either.
-An investigator who describes a roomful of jumbled victims riddled with bullets as an "execution style" murder.
-Silencers that make that "pfft-pffft!" sound.
-Silencers on a revolver
-A professional "sniper" who prefers to shoot standing up.


:shooter:

 

[aedrasteia]

Here's some more:

-Heroes displaying weapons as threats
-Walking up and putting a gun right in someone's face.
-Tumbling with a loaded weapon...diving into a room, forward rolls into cover (when they even bother with cover) etc.
-10 minute gunfights with nobody but some exploding cars getting hit.
-Automatic fire making a straight path of holes across a wall
-Full auto used to mow down villains standing in a neat row
-Bullet strikes causing someone to shake around violently like they were having a seizure.
-The shotgun blast that makes people fly 20' backwards
-The magnum handgun that makes people fly
-The 9mm pistol that makes people fly
-The single shot that causes a car to explode
-The shot that causes a helicopter to explode
-People with really big guns will outshoot everyone else... only because they have the really big gun. These same people are the ones who don't need to look for cover, either.
-An investigator who describes a roomful of jumbled victims riddled with bullets as an "execution style" murder.
-Silencers that make that "pfft-pffft!" sound.
-Silencers on a revolver
-A professional "sniper" who prefers to shoot standing up.
:shooter:

Tgace,

good list.

now, go to the movie or watch the show where all these happen and don't watch the screen - watch the audience.

And after, ask a couple of people from the audience if they noticed x or y or z or any of those things
that piss you off. Just ask if they noticed anything.

Then, explain why those actions are bogus. Be sure to point out all the sloppy, stupid mistakes, especially the
'exciting' ones that really irritate you (hint - anything listed that involves exploding). Ask guys what
they love about 'action' movies. specifically.No sarcasm here. I've done this and learned lots about what audiences really want.

Producers watch test audiences and real overnight attendance numbers.
Oh, and $ from distribution rights, and secondary sales, streaming and other $$ sources.
'Mistakes' exageration, hype, falsification doesn't cost them $, it makes $. Lots of $$

Producers love Bob H:
"Went on a huge tear about how the historic inaccuracies in Patton just ruined the film for him....little things like using US tanks as German ones, cars that were a few years 'too soon', etc. I just enjoyed the movie enough to buy it on vhs, dvd and BR.

OP: "I'd wager that your most weapon ignorant viewer would notice something "different" about the way the actors handle their props. I posit that even people who are ignorant of weaponcraft can sense when a character appears to REALLY know what he/she is doing."

?? in numbers of audience members sufficient to cause script and production changes? not even close.
Script and production research/art direction/production details/continuity especially on a big production is an
enormous expense.

I sympathize - there are films/tv that drive me crazy too. but audiences vote with their $$.
Producers and companies know $$.

your list includes almost everything the men in my extended family (ages 16 - 45) love.
Nope, they don't care if its wrong. they just want it to be cool.
best if it explodes. Loudly.

with respect,

 

[jks9199]

Part of the problem with some of that unreality is that shapes perceptions. Thanks to all the tv car crashes where cars explode into flames every time, people are yanked out of cars by well meaning passers-by, with no regard for the significant possibility of injury. The truth? Cars rarely explode into flame in reality, and, generally, the safest place to leave an injured person after a crash is in the car, so that the medics can assess how to remove them safely.

Yeah, a lot of it's fun stuff... and I don't have anything against reasonable unreality. OK, you're lead crew has to be the ones to catch the bad guys, to go in with the SWAT unit, and so on. Cool. But to rack the gun when it should already have a round chambered? Or to have completely unrealistic responses to being shot or punched (like flying back 40 feet)... Why? Let solid basic stuff like gun handling create a better base for your unrealism.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There was an episode of Dr. Who where a car was going to explode. Epic panic ensued, the car is stopped, the characters make a mad dash and dive into a ditch as the car goes pop. Except that's all it did, pop. As in backfire. Not brew up. It was the producers doing a little dig to the unrealistic car explosions in other shows.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Part of the problem with some of that unreality is that shapes perceptions. Thanks to all the tv car crashes where cars explode into flames every time, people are yanked out of cars by well meaning passers-by, with no regard for the significant possibility of injury. The truth? Cars rarely explode into flame in reality...

On a slightly less serious note, this just made me remember the new 21 Jump St remake. During one particular car chase sequence, the bad guys are sent in a shower of sparks into fuel tankers (that have been shot and fuel is spilling out on the road) - no explosion. Same thing with another similar situation and then finally, a biker slides under a truck full of chickens and THAT explodes. Mind you, the entire film was full of parodies of said Hollywood cliche's such as the "angry black captain".