Adherence to Reality in Television Shows
This post isn’t talking about reality television – which, as we all know, tends to have virtually no basis in what would happen in real life. Rather, I’d like to know your thoughts as to whether realism is a key ingredient in a good television show. In my view, reality in television encompasses a couple of elements.
Firstly, it is the realism of the characters – whether they act as any normal person would, and whether their actions are consistent with their personality. An example of this problem that sticks with me is that of Roswell. At the beginning of the third season, the characters of Max and Liz had suddenly morphed into these supposedly rebellious teens, completely the opposite of what they had been in the previous seasons. Just like people, characters do change, but the process should be a natural evolution rather than a forced departure.
Secondly, there is realm of scientific explanations, which is mostly the domain of science fiction.
This deals with whether the science and technology of shows actually works. This is something that I am not so concerned about. While I prefer that the scientific basis of a programme is not completely nonsensical, I am not one of those people that will nitpick over theoretical details. This is something that I think is pivotal, regardless of the show. If there isn’t consistency of characterisation, I just won’t bother. There is nothing worse than tuning into a show and discovering that the behaviour of the characters has changed overnight. Provided the characterisation and plot are well done, I will overlook the fact that the solution to a problem holds no logic, as was the Doctor’s cure for the diseases in the New Earth episode of Doctor Who.
Finally, there is continuity; that is, whether there is consistency with the references of the show.
I have to admit that I do find continuity errors jarring, such as in Frasier when Martin mentioned not having a brother, only to have one show up a couple of seasons later. I do really appreciate it when a show makes a consistent effort with continuity – Veronica Mars is at the forefront of this, with a bevy of call-backs to previous episodes. I think it is more enjoyable to the viewer when they are able to notice a detail and realise the significance of it.
So, does it irk you if something isn’t as it would be in reality? Which of the above elements is pivotal to your enjoyment of a show? Are there any other realism factors that you think should be included?
*Screencaps courtesy of WIkipedia, and used under Fair Dealing for identification and critical commentary
**Image courtesy of the BBC
Max (Jason Behr) says up with realism*
Firstly, it is the realism of the characters – whether they act as any normal person would, and whether their actions are consistent with their personality. An example of this problem that sticks with me is that of Roswell. At the beginning of the third season, the characters of Max and Liz had suddenly morphed into these supposedly rebellious teens, completely the opposite of what they had been in the previous seasons. Just like people, characters do change, but the process should be a natural evolution rather than a forced departure.
Secondly, there is realm of scientific explanations, which is mostly the domain of science fiction.
Are Cat Nuns grounded in reality?**
Finally, there is continuity; that is, whether there is consistency with the references of the show.
Veronica (Kristin Bell) is calling back*
So, does it irk you if something isn’t as it would be in reality? Which of the above elements is pivotal to your enjoyment of a show? Are there any other realism factors that you think should be included?
*Screencaps courtesy of WIkipedia, and used under Fair Dealing for identification and critical commentary
**Image courtesy of the BBC
Rugby World Cup 2007
Excellent post.
And yes, I already know your dislike of Deus Ex Machina cop-outs!
I really don't watch much TV at the moment so I'll have to think about this but...there is one thing that has always bugged me...
In 'Return of The Jedi', Luke asks Leia if she remembers her mother, to which Leia replies that she vaguely does, she was "..beautiful and very sad...".
So...we are meant to believe that Leia is talking about Amidala...Amidala was hiding on Alderaan with Bail Organa and family. She didn't die in childbirth. She died when Leia was a toddler.
BUT...and this really annoys me but then this whole bloody movie annoyed me and yes I truly do have a life...in ''Return of The Sith', Amidala dies in childbirth.
Aaaarrrggghhh.
DuskDevi
Yes, I am not a particular fan of the Deus Ex Machina when it is a cop-out, but I do think it can be used very well in certain contexts. The final episode of Season 27 of Doctor Who is a great example of taking the concept and using it fantastically.
Celebrity Obsession
I think continuity is important. Terminator 2 irritated me because John Connor was supposed to be 10 years old now......and yet he appeared to be about 16. The character was 100% teenage angst. It just didn't work for me.
The shows I like best also have characters that are realistic. Where change is a gradual process. If change is too quick or jarring, it makes the show a bit soap opera-like (one minute Marlene is a loving mother, the next minute a homocidal maniac.....perhaps she's been brainwashed?????). Even sci-fi shows that aren't based in reality need their characters to have realistic character traits if you're going to identify or care about them.
Another aspect that annoys me is if the situations characters find themselves in are really unrealistic (this wouldn't apply to sci-fi shows though). For that reason I can't watch soap-opera's, Neighbours or Home and Away or couldn't watch Melrose Place (I turned over one episode and a couple of characters had been committed to mental institutions and were about to have lobotomies as part of one of the villians master plans...or something like that). Really ridiculous plot lines just make me angry.
Mind you, in a cartoon style show like The Simpson or Futurama, Family Guy etc....hey, I'm all for ridiculous!
KylieW
Another problem with soap-operas is that the children in them tend to suffer from rapid ageing syndrome. One moment they're an infant, then the next year they're a teenager! I guess all the ages in between aren't plotline-worthy. That has to be the ultimate example of poor characterisation and continuity.
Passionate Apathy
As far as the technobabble goes, we all know most of it is make-believe, silly syllables strung together stylistically. I think the problem isn't with the silly pseudoscience but when the story is about the technobabble instead of how the characters are having to deal with it.
That said, there are some things so basic that they can easily shoot down our disbelief when handled badly. The pilot for Star Trek: Enterprise stated that they could travel from Earth to the Klingon homeworld in four days- and then gave their ship's cruising speed at 100 times the speed of light. Four hundred light-days would be barely over one light-year, and before junior high I (and everyone I knew) was already well aware that the nearest star system is several times farther out.
Of course that was far from their biggest problem; most of their goof-ups were basic common sense, like camping out on an alien planet with tents and sleeping bags with gaps big enough to let big-ass bugs crawl in. It was done for a cheap laugh, but the lasting effect was to prevent us from even pretending that this could be real.
Chatterpillar
You're into "C"s, I'm into "G"s. For me, what the writers put into TV shows gels or grinds. But I do make allowances for gafs - like the anachronism of a Maple leaf flag flying with Canadian troops in a 1946 Normandy landing D-Day re-enactment. Or plantations of pine trees in the background in a historical series portraying pioneer times in Australia or NZ long before Pinus Radiata ever set root here. Hell, it would be tedious for screen writers to have to screen out every possible gaf. Just as long as they are professional about your two Cs, any gafs pale into insignificance and the show gels for me nonetheless.
Maybe I could mention another "G" word - Gross! As in over-statement in full-on sex scenes, when understatement could be far more expressive of the particular characters involved.
Think I'll see the portrayal coming soon about the life of Beatrice Potter. Apparently half the series goes by with her only fantacising the first kiss with her lover. Then one day, the real kiss. Now that's my idea of reality - fantacy come true!.
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
But Lost was pretty unrealistic, and people went nuts over that...