What? Or, Why Television is Weird
Posted 15 June 2008 in Television by Catriona
TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FOR CSI: A crime so shocking, so mystifying . . . is this a case for the Mythbusters?
(Caption: Special Guest Stars: The Mythbusters)
ME: What?
NICK: What?
TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FOR CSI (sotto voce): Hang on, what did I just say?
Seriously—I realise that, as a good nineteenth-century scholar, I should be watching the BBC’s adaptation of Northanger Abbey. (I am going to watch it, but I was a bit scarred by an earlier adaptation that was apparently scripted by someone who has no understanding of the concept of irony.)
Perhaps my current confusion is a fair return for my decision to record Austen and watch CSI and Supernatural instead.
But I seriously think this belongs on my list of the most perplexing things I’ve ever seen on television—and I’ve seen at least one episode of Mutant X.
Share your thoughts [6]
1
Tim wrote at Jun 15, 01:30 pm
Though Adam and Jamie didn’t get any lines. I was disappointed.
2
Catriona wrote at Jun 15, 10:10 pm
Well, that was the strangest part, in the end—I haven’t figured out whether they were actually the real Mythbusters there in person, the real Mythbusters playing lab-tech extras, or some kind of hallucination on Nick Stokes’s part brought on by excessive use of ballistics gel.
3
Tim wrote at Jun 16, 09:21 am
My assumption was that they were there in person. If they were playing generic lab techs, Nick wouldn’t have made such a deal of noticing them, and if they were a hallucination, he would have gone ‘am I seeing things?’
On the other hand, I’m tempted to think the whole episode was a hallucination. ;)
4
Catriona wrote at Jun 16, 09:32 am
Well, I don’t think they were a hallucination, as such. That was poorly phrased, perhaps—more a kind of, “I’m so clever to have figured out why the man ignited—I bet if the Mythbusters were here, they’d give me a thumbs up” kind of daydream, rather than a hallucination.
But I think you’re right—which begs the question why they were in the lab in person, and why no one else noticed or spoke to them.
I have a feeling that CSI went off the rails some time ago, and I’m only noticing now.
5
Tim wrote at Jun 16, 10:48 am
Looking back, I’m not sure when it was ever on the rails, really.
6
Catriona wrote at Jun 16, 11:05 am
I’m sure it was better, once, than it is now, though. CSI: Miami was never on the rails, that’s for sure. And I’m not sure that CSI: New York was, either. But at least with the original CSI, there used to be some point to the stories. Plausible motives—or at least semi-plausible. Scientific montages that actually served some purposes as far as advancing the storyline.
There were offensive moments—I remember a story with a woman who died, and her house was filthy, and they were extrapolating all sorts of conclusions about her state of mind, which freaked me out (but not enough to actually make sure that my house is spotless, in case I’m suddenly murdered.) I think the Television Without Pity recapper was a bit worried by that episode, too, if I remember correctly.
But I think my main concern is the way that they’re focusing explicitly on the personal lives of the CSIs. Brought up on The Bill—back when it was really good television—and the early days of original Law and Order, I just want the crimes; I don’t care which characters are using drugs or sleeping with their co-workers.
I’m sure CSI used to be about the crimes.