*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?

Don't get me started on the science of CSI. Let's just say I consider it right up there with The Professor from Gilligan's Island.



Capt. Kirk blasting the Gorn commander with a scratch-built cannon.

-Blast

Capt. Kirk blasting the Gorn commander with a scratch-built cannon.

-Blast [/quote]

Definitely one of the best episodes. Have you seen the remastered Star Trek episodes (with new digital graphics)? Unlike the episode with the Doomsday Machine, the Gorn was not improved.

__________________________

There was that Love Boat episode when Capt. Steubing and some crew/passengers were marooned on an island where John Astin was hiding. Seems to me that a hurricane was approaching...

"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?"

AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

They drive me crazy to the point that I talk to the television, which is why I'm not allowed to watch it with 'civilized' people anymore (at least, that's what my sister says). It's also one of the reasons that I don't have TV service anymore.

After years and years of this kind of crap, I've just decided that producers and directors are ignorant idiots.

Why does the woman being chased by a car keep running down the middle of the street? Why doesn't she veer off and climb over a few fences?

Why does the woman in the negligee always decide to investigate some weird sound in the old house in the middle of the night?

Why do the women always kneel and crawl and beg for mercy when they would be better off stomping the guy in the knee, kicking him in his sensitive parts, then stomping on his throat and running off?

Why do the women always want a full explanation of what is going on when someone says "RUN!"?

Why is it when a woman has small children in a house full of monsters finally figures it out that there ARE monsters, and her first thought is to pack a suitcase?

My favorite (facetiously speaking) movie was 'Savage Harvest', starring Tom Skerritt (go figure), where less than 30 minutes into the movie, you wanted all the adults and all the children to be killed and eaten by the lions, and for the lions to lay in the sun with full bellies and blissful smiles on their muzzles.

GGGGGGRRRRRRRRRR!

Sue

Yes, they are SWEET. Here in Houston UHF tv channel 55 shows them Saturday nights at 9pm, right after the old Battlestar Galactica and just before Tales from the Darkside. After TFTDS is Dr. Peculiar's House of Horror.

I love Saturday nights!

-Blast, 14th level nerd.

It looked like she was walking toward the road which makes sense, but I agree, she should have waited in some shade until night and then walked. Also why didn't she try to collect some water when so much of it was available?

Better written than some shows, but I would prefer it if they had written a better ending.

Oh man, here we are, in the middle on nowhere, no TV (and not missing it), no nothing. And you went and ruined the reruns for us...

An injured woman who isn't schooled in survival, not acting like Les Stroud doesn't sound that unlikely to me.

Can you cite the episode of CSI where anything else you've listed happened?
simon

Its because of shows like that I no longer have a TV. Haven't had one since I came to college. I miss Survivorman, Law and Order and Good Eats. Everything else makes me want to shout at the TV, including the news (which is why I read the newspaper and articles online).

The point is, if they are trying to portray her as someone with no survival training, your argument might make sense. "This is how normal people react when their car crashes in the middle of the desert." But in this case, they were clearly attempting to portray her as somewhat savvy about survival, or at least imply that she was not panicking; she had the presence of mind to take the mirror from the crashed car, and she stacked up stones to leave a trail for others to find. (Since nobody knew she was out there, leaving the car and trying to find a road did make sense.) Why, then, do they think it is more impressive to have her stumbling around in the midday desert sun, when they could have made it even more dramatic by having her find shelter, wait for evening or nightfall, and then (just a suggestion) make her way toward the lights on the highway, or even take an active role in the eventual rescue (instead of being found by a one-in-a-million fluke)?

I think it's just laziness, or perhaps they don't have a very high regard for their viewers' intelligence.

I sure hope that's sarcasm. 'Cause if it isn't, I feel just terrible

Don't feel too terrible. If I do ever watch CSI, it is just for Marg...

I haven't seen the episode (it's not being show till next year in the UK) so won't argue the details. But i've always found CSI to be the opposite of 'dumbing down'. Within the limits of having to make it good television (ok the police procedure is nonsense, CSI's don't interview and DNA results don't come back hours later) it's the last series to insult your intelligence. Some baddies get away. some were never even crimes. the CSI's never use their guns and shootings, even by the cops are presented as the tragedy they are.
But what seems obvious to us isn't to others. And didn't to us one time. Ask around and I bet you'll find plenty of intelligent people who don't know to never leave the vehicle, or travel by day in a desert. You ever wondered why you are the only person at work with a torch and a knife?
Besides didn't someone say she had to bandage her head? Not the best situation to be thinking straight.
simon

OOhh yeah, I've been a fan of hers since the old tv show China Beach!

Oh yeah...

Good point. There was a reason that show was such a classic and developed such a die-hard fan following.

I think its biggest strength was that the writers, and even the actors, took the characters seriously, even when the plots were kind of hokey.

Too many shows seem to be written as if the writers are saying to themselves "Who cares? It's just a TV show." And I always find myself thinking, "If they don't care about the characters, why should I?"

I personally would prefer to just get rid of the d**n idiot box, but my wife unfortunately is one of those people who insists on turning it on as background noise, and is perfectly capable of ignoring it - but gets very upset if I (a) turn it off, or (b) don't pay attention to her because there's five minutes left and they're about to reveal the TRUE KILLER... :-(

But Star Trek (The Original Series) was awesome in its ability to make you believe in the characters.