July 29, 2023 TV Bugs Me

TV is the nexus of my life. I do not always just watch TV; sometimes I study it. I have gone so far as to watch an entire TV series, or parts of it, multiple times to fully grasp the story arcs, the cultural backdrop, relationships of the characters, how each character evolves or not, and generally how the series tells one or more stories during its lifetime. I am also interested in camera work, score, and editing.

The legends of media theory studied a much different aspect of TV and print media. While attending university in Canada in 1972/73, the media philosophy of Marshall McLuhan was everywhere. He was “a Canadian philosopher whose work is among the cornerstones of the study of media theory.” Wikipedia, various sources

Personally, I found his theories about how different mediums are “hot” or “cold” exceptionally confusing, and while reading up on them for this post, I still didn’t get it. Frankly, I am not sure whether his theories would even be applicable to all of the various media we consume each day.

I remember watching Archie Bunker many decades ago, and recalling that it was hailed as being very close to what American life was really all about in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Are there any variety shows in prime time these days? In the late 60’s and early 70’s, we had Laugh-In, That Was The Week That Was and The Ed Sullivan Show, which is where the Beatles had their American TV debut. Has “reality TV” replaced game shows entirely? I despise reality TV; I’d rather watch a show selling knives. I dumped cable (here, satellite) channels a long time ago, and haven’t watched American TV for over 7 years. I literally have no idea what is shown on American TV these days, except when those series are found on NetFlix.

Does American TV today intend, through its shows, to portray actual American life, as Archie Bunker did? This fascinating aspect of TV is not addressed in this post.

Do TV series in other countries intend, through their shows, to portray actual life in their societies? I only have some clues on this, but not addressed here.

Enough prologue. Now, on to the many ways that TV Bugs Me.

Ⅰ Why does character in a TV show do or say precisely the wrong thing? Or fails to do or say the clearly obvious thing?

What a character will do or not do in regards to scenes involving vehicles is fairly rote. I roll my eyes and cringe a little, and sometimes mutter at the TV, when a character is being chased by a vehicle down a street and never turns right or left onto a sidewalk or into a doorway. I do the same when a character crossing a street sees the vehicle that is about to run him down, and just stands there like a deer in headlights. Why don’t they turn or run? Where is their common sense? But common sense would not advance the story. That character simply had to die.

Another thing: if the vehicle you’re driving suddenly loses its brakes, wouldn’t the sensible thing be to slip the transmission into neutral? The characters always panic and keep smashing the brake pedal as if Gilligan will surely get off the island this time. Again, if common sense prevailed, there would be no suspense and the resulting crash would not be satisfactory.

Another thing that bugs me: When a person is trapped inside a house, why do they never try to break a window instead of trying every locked door in sight?

I get frustrated when it is patently clear that a character must say something important and doesn’t. I know why, of course: telling others the crucial information would shorten the show considerably and/or ruin any suspense created by withholding. It also bugs me that I ruined my own life because I did not say the important thing at the right time. I guess I’m throwing stones at my own glass house to be irritated by this failure by any character.

What about intuition? Some characters obviously know that what they are about to do is the wrong thing, yet do it anyway. Again, glass house. Ignoring my own gut instinct may be about to destroy my life.

These decisions to do or not do nearly always have negative or fatal consequences for the characters.

Ⅱ Why are so many chase scenes boring when they should be exciting?

Somebody please let me into the editing room and give me a pair of scissors!

Too many chase scenes are simply too long, and having nothing going for them. Just one guy or one vehicle being chased by one or more guys or vehicles through, generally, an urban landscape. Here is where the scissors come in. Big time.

Another thing: why does the director allow the score to become overwhelming during a chase? Does he think high volume makes it more exciting? Guess what? It doesn’t. It is merely annoying.

If there are any unusual features to the chase, however, its length can feel shorter, and the chase itself, whether long or short, can be as exciting as it is supposed to be. There is a rather stupendous vehicle chase scene in K2, a Korean TV offering. Here the main character has absconded with the evil woman, but their vehicle is hacked. This results in high speed controlled by the hackers, no brakes, and no window control. The responses to the hacking by the main character are the exciting features of this chase: changing seats with the woman who had been driving, having the woman attempt to roll down the window as the driver speeds up to create distance from the hackers, pulling a 360 with the vehicle while shooting at the hackers through the now open window, and the exciting resultant crash and its unexpected aftermath. And no loud score.

That’s how vehicular chase scenes should be: visually and emotionally stimulating.

Ⅲ Why are so many fight scenes boring when they should be exciting?

UGH! Where do I start?

First of all, the majority are just too unrealistic, and too frequently, the camera work and the background music are uninspired. Again, as in chase scenes, the director frequently allows the score to become overwhelming. High volume does not make high excitement.

Any time our hero is confronted by a group of attackers, every punch by the hero is a knock out, yet he remains unscathed by these encounters. Enter the main villain. Now the fight between the hero and the villain is nearly always equal until, of course, the hero is on his last gasp. Then he bounces back with the energy of a teenager and defeats the villain. UGH!

Camera work is king here. Mere baseline shots from the same angle from various sides of the action are boring. Oh, sure, there’s the occasional close-up of a face or a punch. Still, boring. I am sure that there are many fight scenes unknown to me that are exciting, but for the ones I find truly entrancing, I must return to K2. Various camera angles and heights, stop action “pictures” with a 360 degree view, extremely well edited, and no loud music. Instead, the score is quite understated, which makes for a nice contrast to the violence.

Ⅳ Why do so many shows linger on and on when they should have left long ago?

You can always tell when a show is on its last legs. Suddenly, there is a new character, a new location, dream sequences, and a lot of filler comprised of memories of former scenes.

But why do they stay when they have clearly outrun their course? Because they still have an audience share, and still make a profit. That is the only reason I can think of. Why people continue to watch Law & Order sex crimes for 22 years and counting (or is it off the air?) is beyond my understanding.

Ⅴ Why don’t the editors notice inconsistencies in clothing or background within the same scene?

I rather enjoy catching editors’ errors in not pointing these out to the director. Oh! That sounds sadistic, doesn’t it?

Some aspects of TV do bug me, but that doesn’t stop me from either watching or studying it. It remains a window, however real or distorted, into our time and cultures. The trick is to figure out how distorted it is.