Faux Life: Things That Happen On TV But Not In Reality

[Kel Varnsen]

35 minutes ago, possibilities said:

stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 because the heroes grabbed someone they suspected, put him in a basement, tied him up, and shot him in the knee to get information. When they later found out they had the wrong guy, they just moved on-- no repercussions for them. No guilt, just-- oops! wrong guy! We gotta keep looking!

They had a habit of deciding who they thought was the perp, grabbing that person without any real evidence, and then roughing them up and letting them go when it turned out they were wrong--- but it was treated like no big deal, they were sexy macho heroes and this behavior was part of their rogue genius or something.

That was one of the reasons why I stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 (and Chicago PD) too. That and the fact that they could solve major crimes or take down like a huge organizer crime ring in like a day.  I mean I'm not asking a CBS cop show to be The Wire, but at least show them having to change clothes at least once in the time it takes to bring down a human trafficking ring. 

But the police brutality thing was annoying too. I mean if you want to show a cop doing that I am ok with it if it works story wise. But the fact that it seems to work every time was so frustrating. Like they always pick up the right guy and after they beat him up he always tells them where the stash house is or where his partner is hiding. No one ever gives the wrong information, either because they don't know the truth and making up anything will make the beating stop, or because they are the right person but giving the cops made up information buys you time and wastes there time.

[proserpina65]

8 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

What we don't have in Hollywood are police procedurals where their heroes are genuinely allowed to make mistakes. Unless it's a "special episode", we never see them arrest the wrong suspect, follow a dubious lead, or make the incorrect analysis, and the cases the heroes close are always perfect and never seem up for review.

We'll never see the heroes fail to pick up a piece of evidence, and all the evidence they do get is of pristine quality that could never be questioned.

Oh, and the confessions the criminals give are always air tight.

Funny thing is, Law & Order original recipe did have things like this happen throughout the early seasons, particularly in season one.  Especially arresting the wrong suspect.  Though, of course, they eventually got the correct person by the end of the show.  Those kinds of things happened less and less often in the later seasons.

2 hours ago, possibilities said:

I stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 because the heroes grabbed someone they suspected, put him in a basement, tied him up, and shot him in the knee to get information. When they later found out they had the wrong guy, they just moved on-- no repercussions for them. No guilt, just-- oops! wrong guy! We gotta keep looking!

They had a habit of deciding who they thought was the perp, grabbing that person without any real evidence, and then roughing them up and letting them go when it turned out they were wrong--- but it was treated like no big deal, they were sexy macho heroes and this behavior was part of their rogue genius or something.

The original Steve McGarrett would've been horrified.  He was very by-the-book.

 

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

But the police brutality thing was annoying too. I mean if you want to show a cop doing that I am ok with it if it works story wise. But the fact that it seems to work every time was so frustrating. Like they always pick up the right guy and after they beat him up he always tells them where the stash house is or where his partner is hiding. No one ever gives the wrong information, either because they don't know the truth and making up anything will make the beating stop, or because they are the right person but giving the cops made up information buys you time and wastes there time.

I've seen literally 1 episode of Chicago PD and this crap is pretty much why.

[Zella]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

I stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 because the heroes grabbed someone they suspected, put him in a basement, tied him up, and shot him in the knee to get information. When they later found out they had the wrong guy, they just moved on-- no repercussions for them. No guilt, just-- oops! wrong guy! We gotta keep looking!

I've ranted about this before, but Law and Order SVU was really bad for this too. I  know Lake is a controversial character in the fandom, but I really liked him. And he gets treated like a crazy person by the rest of the characters and even bullied by Stabler for reasonably suggesting that maybe the person they're pursuing isn't guilty. He ends up being right. Does anyone apologize or rethink their approach to the job? Nope.

I actually just finished reading a book by Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson, and he basically argues your average person is incompetent at their job. His take is that many grocery store clerks, electricians, and office workers screw up shit on the regular, and cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are no different. It's not even an issue of being unintelligent or inexperienced. To him, it's just human nature.

[Shannon L.]

The only tv show that I've been able to suspend disbelief over the horrible things that a character in law enforcement does is 24, but then, that was kind of the premise of the show: Get the bad guys asap and at all costs.  Otherwise,  I'll give shows a little leeway, but something like what's being described on Hawaii 5-0 is a bit much-especially if it's a regular thing.

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

The only tv show that I've been able to suspend disbelief over the horrible things that a character in law enforcement does is 24, but then, that was kind of the premise of the show: Get the bad guys asap and at all costs.  Otherwise,  I'll give shows a little leeway, but something like what's being described on Hawaii 5-0 is a bit much-especially if it's a regular thing.

If memory serves the kneecapping was a 24 terrorist H5-0 episode. Like 24 they had nukes go off in Hawaii. After the first season when SEAL and Naval Intelligence officer McGarrett brought many imaginative enhanced interrogation tricks they settled down to chaining folks to a chair in the basement and not stopping the questions  even as suspects/sources tried to invoke their rights.

[possibilities]

Sadly, unethical behavior is probably one of the more realistic things tv shows offer us, so maybe it's not actually appropriate for this thread!

IRL, torture is shown to not be an effective way to get info, so even if it's urgent, shooting someone's knee is not the best way to go, however.

--

Something I do find unrealistic is that tv shows (broadcast, at least) show people in bed, clearly post-sex, and the woman has her bra on and the guy pulls back the covers to get out of bed and he's got his underwear on. Maybe there are people who have sex that way, but it's nothing I've ever heard of IRL, and certainly not the norm.

I realize they need to keep things covered for the camera, but it still makes me laugh every time/

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, possibilities said:

Sadly, unethical behavior is probably one of the more realistic things tv shows offer us, so maybe it's not actually appropriate for this thread!

IRL, torture is shown to not be an effective way to get info, so even if it's urgent, shooting someone's knee is not the best way to go, however.

That's where I have always had the issue. Sure having a cop who uses brutality to get information probably isn't unrealistic. And one who does that and doesn't face many consequences probably isn't either. But the fact that brutality always works and never sends the cops on a wild goose chase is super annoying.

[Raja]

5 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

That's where I have always had the issue. Sure having a cop who uses brutality to get information probably isn't unrealistic. And one who does that and doesn't face many consequences probably isn't either. 

😈

McGarrett only answered to the governor. But then the governor answered to the big bad, Wo Fat

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 5/28/2024 at 3:00 AM, Danielg342 said:

I agree it's a good spot for a meeting, but is it a good spot for a secret meeting? One where one- or both, or all- of the attendees risk capture or serious harm if they're seen visibly in public? Is it also a great place to discuss sensitive trade or state secrets, when others in the park could potentially hear what is being said?

This directly ties into another TV trope that has nothing to do with spying or espionage, how two characters can have a conversation and not be overheard regardless of where they are. Or who they're talking about, like a third character who might even be in the same room. It's like echo location in reverse.

[andromeda331]

17 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

That's where I have always had the issue. Sure having a cop who uses brutality to get information probably isn't unrealistic. And one who does that and doesn't face many consequences probably isn't either. But the fact that brutality always works and never sends the cops on a wild goose chase is super annoying.

Same here. Burn Notice is the only show I've seen that points out that torture isn't reliable. Which it isn't. People being torture will say anything to make it stop or the first lie they can think of. Also a lot of them don't break. I know it's normally the "hero" or star of the show that never breaks. But a lot of normal people don't. During WWII a lot of resistance members never broke no matter how much they were tortured. 

Edited June 7 by andromeda331

[Danielg342]

13 hours ago, possibilities said:

I take it that's not the kind of fallibility you want to see!

No...I'm thinking more about fallibility but in a non-catastrophic sense. For example, the detective records the wrong name during questioning because he's talking to someone with a thick accent. Or the prosecutor that has to deal with a forensic lab where one vital piece of evidence was not handled properly (but is still useable).

At the extreme end, I'd love to see more detective/police shows tackle a case that was resolved previously (preferably one we'd seen before) but they have to re-open it because the guy they caught escaped conviction, and it wasn't because the detective and/or the prosecutor were bad at their jobs. Cases are rarely ever cut-and-dry in real life and sometimes new evidence emerges that changes the analysis of the original case. It would be nice if Hollywood acknowledged this without throwing the heroes under the bus.

10 hours ago, Zella said:

His take is that many grocery store clerks, electricians, and office workers screw up shit on the regular, and cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are no different. It's not even an issue of being unintelligent or inexperienced. To him, it's just human nature.

Heh. Having worked in a 500 person factory, I can attest this is true. I say it all the time to my brother. It's rare indeed to find someone who isn't just really good at their jobs but also dedicated enough to it that they will do it right.

That said, I don't see it as people are all incompetent- I think the vast majority of people, especially those who stick around their jobs for a while, have at least some competence, otherwise they wouldn't stay employed. What I believe is the culprit is the general human tendency to not want to do a lot of work. So most people will do all they can to do the least amount of work possible, and this involves cutting corners, ignoring certain duties, rushing tasks, not always following procedure to the letter, etc. With experience, most people know on their job what they can and can't get away with, and, usually, it works out for them.

The only problems are that some people take the whole "cutting work" thing too far and, even if someone doesn't go too far in cutting out aspects of their work, sometimes the lack of following protocols and procedures will catch up to them. Many times the mistake isn't catastrophic. Other times it is. This kind of nuance is something I wish Hollywood would acknowledge a bit more often.

10 hours ago, possibilities said:

Something I do find unrealistic is that tv shows (broadcast, at least) show people in bed, clearly post-sex, and the woman has her bra on and the guy pulls back the covers to get out of bed and he's got his underwear on. Maybe there are people who have sex that way, but it's nothing I've ever heard of IRL, and certainly not the norm.

I realize they need to keep things covered for the camera, but it still makes me laugh every time/

One of those unfortunate realities about broadcast TV...I wish things were different but there's only so much we can do.

What I think I would like to see- because it's happened in my relationships and I'm sure it's happened in others- is a couple who is completely naked (or as naked as standards allow) and they have a major argument that isn't related to sex in some way. Or they're around the house and they're naked, because they're at home and no one's there to judge them on their looks.

There are too many times where Hollywood equates bare skin with sexiness and I wish they wouldn't do that all the time.

[meep.meep]

16 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

No...I'm thinking more about fallibility but in a non-catastrophic sense. For example, the detective records the wrong name during questioning because he's talking to someone with a thick accent. Or the prosecutor that has to deal with a forensic lab where one vital piece of evidence was not handled properly (but is still useable).

At the extreme end, I'd love to see more detective/police shows tackle a case that was resolved previously (preferably one we'd seen before) but they have to re-open it because the guy they caught escaped conviction, and it wasn't because the detective and/or the prosecutor were bad at their jobs. Cases are rarely ever cut-and-dry in real life and sometimes new evidence emerges that changes the analysis of the original case. It would be nice if Hollywood acknowledged this without throwing the heroes under the bus.

 

Your first one was just done on a show called Criminal Record starring Peter Capaldi.  Someone wrote down a witness's name wrong and then the cops couldn't find him for further questioning so things went wrong.

The second one I'm pretty sure was done on Prime Suspect but I may be remembering wrong.

There are no nudists on TV.  The parents of one of my high school boyfriends were nudists.  He warned me, but I forgot.

 

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, meep.meep said:

Your first one was just done on a show called Criminal Record starring Peter Capaldi.  Someone wrote down a witness's name wrong and then the cops couldn't find him for further questioning so things went wrong.

The second one I'm pretty sure was done on Prime Suspect but I may be remembering wrong.

There are no nudists on TV.  The parents of one of my high school boyfriends were nudists.  He warned me, but I forgot.

 

Monk, Murdoch Mysteries and the original Night Court had an episode with nudists. Jane and Maura discussed it after learning lab tech Susie and her boyfriend go on nudist retreats. 

[DoctorAtomic]

When Lucifer migrated to Netflix, there was a nudist retreat they visited to question people about a crime. Hilarity ensued. 

 

[Danielg342]

I'm not surprised the British shows provided some examples of realistic fallibility. Those shows tended to be a bit more realistic. I just wish we had more examples on this side of the pond, because we don't see it enough from Hollywood.

Also, I wasn't talking about nudists. I'm aware a lot of shows have nudists. I'm talking about "everyday" people being, occasionally, doing something non-sexual, likely at home (where they could get away with it) in the nude or mostly in the nude. Because- although it really could just be me- I'm sure there are people who doff at least some of their clothes when others are not around. I remember when I worked at the factory that when I got home I usually took off my pants because they got uncomfortable after a long day.

[Shannon L.]

Beware if you are the spouse/partner/child of a law enforcement officer (especially Federal law enforcement) or a politician--you will more than likely be kidnapped for a political ideal or murdered as retribution.

[Shrek]

On 6/10/2024 at 9:15 AM, Shannon L. said:

Beware if you are the spouse/partner/child of a law enforcement officer (especially Federal law enforcement) or a politician--you will more than likely be kidnapped for a political ideal or murdered as retribution.

The thing is we're not that far off it being reality rather than just a tv thing.

[Affogato]

On 6/6/2024 at 2:47 PM, Zella said:

I've ranted about this before, but Law and Order SVU was really bad for this too. I  know Lake is a controversial character in the fandom, but I really liked him. And he gets treated like a crazy person by the rest of the characters and even bullied by Stabler for reasonably suggesting that maybe the person they're pursuing isn't guilty. He ends up being right. Does anyone apologize or rethink their approach to the job? Nope.

I actually just finished reading a book by Vincent Bugliosi, who prosecuted Charles Manson, and he basically argues your average person is incompetent at their job. His take is that many grocery store clerks, electricians, and office workers screw up shit on the regular, and cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are no different. It's not even an issue of being unintelligent or inexperienced. To him, it's just human nature.

I found that book, which I read when it came out, had a lot of i teresting bits. I still think about it.