*SPOILER WARNING* if you haven't seen this episode, which I believe aired last week

Some of the recent discussions about Bear Grylls's show and the "Hollywood" theatrics got me to thinking about the silliness of last week's episode of CSI, in which Sarah (I didn't see the entire episode, just caught bits of the last half-hour) is in a car crash in the Nevada desert. She fixes an improvised sling for her injured left shoulder, wraps a bandanna around her head, and remembers to take the rear-view mirror before stumbling away from the crash scene.

Now, granted (this being CSI), I gather she was escaping from some bad guy, so her decision to leave the immediate vicinity as quickly as possible could be justified. Or maybe she knew that no-one would be looking for her, so her only alternative was to try to find a road. I was really happy to see that the writers gave her the presence of mind to take the rear-view mirror as a signalling device. And granted, television budgets (and politics) being what they are, I can see why the director wouldn't want to write his 5- or 6-figure per episode stars out of the show in order to bring in some guest star in a SAR uniform to do the actual searching, so the decision to have a bunch of forensic scientist out doing SAR work makes sense from a budget/ego perspective.

But having done this, why did the writers fall back on the old hackneyed shots of this tough-as-nails-and-supposedly-intelligent woman stumbling around in the middle of the day in temperatures of 100 degrees plus, until she passes out from heatstroke and dehydration, instead of finding some sort of shelter and waiting for nightfall (or at least evening). Or better yet, how about having her build a signal fire?

In the end, she is rescued when she passes out and one of her co-workers, as he is driving down the highway at 60 miles an hour, sees the sun reflected off the rear-view mirror that she has been hanging onto all day.

Why do you suppose that most TV and Hollywood producers seem to think that a supposedly intelligent heroine blundering around in the desert at midday without a map, water, or an organized game plan is "more dramatic" than seeing the same person, in the same desperate situation, acting rationally and taking an active part in their own rescue?

It's tempting to say "they just don't know any better", but I don't think that explains it. CSI supposedly prides itself on its research and attention to detail when it comes to forensics. I'm not sure I agree with that - their storylines have become very far-fetched in my opinion.

But I have the same issue watching characters performing "CPR" on these shows. IMHO, it would be much more dramatic watching someone do CPR properly, going "1-and-2-and-3-and-4-and-5..." as we were taught to do in First Aid class, rather than doing a couple of chest compressions and then hysterically yelling "Come on, BREATHE, goddamit!" I'm pretty sure every stunt double on the set would be able to show them how to do it correctly; the directors simply seem to think that having the hero break down and cry is more dramatic than having them act like - well, like a real hero (or paramedic, or cop, or flight attendant) would.

Do you think the average viewer really considers it more dramatic to see one of the heroes portrayed merely as a "damsel in distress", stumbling around incoherently without a game plan?

And, on a related note, what are the best fictional "survival" episodes of a television series you've seen?