• 9 years ago
    Saved!
    Honest question: In shows like #House (medicine) and #Suits (law practice), do you consider important that they deal with their specific topic realistically?

    I've been watching Suits recently, and after some research I found that actual lawyers pointed out the show isn't even close to resembling real law practice. I found the same for House. My point is I can't imagine how pissed i'd be if I watched any of these shows again after I went to medical school or Harvard :S
    Loading …
    • Leya Kath
      Saved!
      Leya Kath
      Editing … I think you're right. ^^ . But, in the case of House (I don't know Suits), they took their inspiration for real cases. Of course, they make fiction from it, and I think this is normal: we need romance, hope, love, passion, etc... If I want to get closer to the reality, I'll watch a documentary or a report.
      Loading …
    • Ulty
      Saved!
      Ulty
      Editing … Of course, but that's not the point. We need to be emotionally connected, hence the fictional characters and their hardships, but what about the medicine/law practice? Does it really need to be fake and factually incorrect for the writters to be able to make emotional scenes and fictional characters? Why can't they sucessfully make both an emotional connection with the viewer AND intelectually engage the audience with realistic, cold hard medicine/law practice? It really makes me wonder if they intentionally make it fake for the sake of fiction/entertainment, because if not why can't they just hire someone who is an expert in said field to supervise the screenplay?
      Loading …
    • Rich .
      Saved!
      Rich .
      Editing … I would guess soldiers have the same "that's not how it happens" reaction to most war films, I've heard spies think films like Bourne and Bond and shows like 24 are ridiculous, as are a lot of sports films for anyone who understands those sports (try to box like Stallone does in Rocky and you wouldn't last 5 minutes, forget going the distance) and I know films like Gladiator, Braveheart and 300 don't come very close to the actual historical events. Storytelling being prioritised over realism's pretty common I'd say. I wouldn't say it's too bad of a thing as long as the film/show isn't passing itself off as realistic and it probably saves the writers a lot of effort that can go into refining the storytelling instead.
      Loading …
    • Billy McKenna
      Saved!
      Billy McKenna
      Editing … The rise in Forensics in TV has been hilarious. Look at CSI as a prime example; they have crime scene investigators collecting evidence, examining evidence, questioning witnesses, drawing up case notes, interrogating suspects, and giving evidence in court... it just doesn't happen. As a CSI, you collect evidence... THAT'S IT! You never learn what happened, if they're caught, etc. because you will examine 3+ scenes per day. You just label stuff and send it to the analyst. The analyst is even more in the dark, they get given an object, get told to analyse it and THAT'S IT! They don't even know what crime has been committed. It's this way on purpose, to ensure everyone is completely objective and only the facts are submitted in the end... but that would make for terrible TV.
      Loading …
    • Ulty
      Saved!
      Ulty
      Editing … But why couldn't they establish a multitude of characters with different jobs, so that every one of those steps is realistically portrayed and followed? I guess what i'm trying to get here is that it can't be that hard to create a compelling story with good characters, while at the same time respecting its topic in a believable way. Take House for example: the medicine rarely gets in the way of the actual characters, it's mostly used as the "case of the day" formula that's commonly seen on television. Is it really impossible to leave it completely realistic while dealing with the characters at the same time?
      Loading …
    • Billy McKenna
      Saved!
      Billy McKenna
      Editing … I'm not sure if you could do it realistically and still have character development. The CSI's, forensic analysts, police officers, investigators, criminal psychologists, prosecution officers, etc. would work in different departments (often entirely different companies/services); and often the analysis lab is in a different city all together to the police station etc. So the chances of the characters even meeting is slim and if they did they'd often not be able, legally to discuss the cases. Some do shows do try though... 'Bones' is a great show where they make a point of having FBI and Forensic Analysts working together, and they mention that it's unusual to have "squints" in the field collecting evidence, but hand-wave it by explaining that she's one of the best analysts in the country and make a special exception. They often have other departments involved in the show, but even then it's far from realistic and Brennan is still basically a super-woman who does the jobs of about 5 people... (that said, USA may have different regulations on how they conduct forensic research. I trained in UK, and I'm basing this on my experience. I can't say for sure USA isn't more like that).
      Loading …
    • Ulty
      Saved!
      Ulty
      Editing … Ok they work in different departments/buildings/firms/places/whatever, but i'm sure all of them are working on a schedule. Have scenes with them meeting and talking after work, or hell even talk about the cases. It's illegal but i'm sure this happens in real life. Maybe it's because I am not aware of how each topic is actually handled in real life, but honestly until I do I can't see why it isn't possible. Just pick competent writers, have an expert on the field actually supervising the script instead of being another writer, and go from there. In my head it just seems so simple :P
      Loading …
Deleted!
  • Saved!
    (≡ˆ⊝ω⊝ˆ≡ )
    Loading …
    • Saved!
      Editing … (≡ˆ⊝ω⊝ˆ≡ )
      Loading …
  • Saved!
    Editing … (≡ˆ⊝ω⊝ˆ≡ )
    Loading …