CSI: Miami

quote:

Op vrijdag 19 maart 2004 08:29 schreef blablasjit het volgende:
is gewoon in het algemeen... hij weet altijd al alles en zijn karakter word gewoon te veel... Het kan ook zijn dat het aan mij ligt.. maar ik ergerde me er een beetje aan op een gegeven moment.

quote:

Op vrijdag 19 maart 2004 16:49 schreef Jerruh het volgende:

[..]

mjwa ik ook, en hij heeft zon fakestem...

quote:

Op vrijdag 19 maart 2004 16:53 schreef Jerruh het volgende:

horatio dan .

quote:

Op vrijdag 19 maart 2004 21:50 schreef Dafje33 het volgende:
Had ik het nou laatst goed gezien? Wilde zijn schoonzus nou wat met hem (=H)?

quote:

A couple of weeks ago I happened to see an episode of a TV show called "CSI Miami" that perpetuates into the digital age one of television and movie screenwriters' more asinine conventions.

Of course, as with most TV shows, realism isn't this one's strong suit. The "star" of the show is a redheaded guy who evidently has exactly one mode in his acting repertoire — that of a sardonic, condescending poseur who spends an inordinate amount of time dramatically donning and removing sunglasses. (Perhaps Ray-Ban is a show sponsor?) The character he plays seems to have a limitless departmental budget and no supervisors whatsoever. Although putatively a "CSI," or crime scene investigator, he seems also to be a detective and a squad lieutenant, a one-man crime-fighting force with near-despotic powers over the citizenry. And wouldn't it be nice if once in a while these actors would act as if it weren't a foregone conclusion that they're on their way to solving the crime? But never mind that.

In the episode I saw, a paparazzi is found killed and his film stolen. Various plot twists progress until the film is recovered, at which point Our Hero sees something everybody else has missed — what looks like two shadowy figures in the dark window of a distant mansion.

Right away, I know what's coming. We're going to be treated to yet another iteration of that hoary old Hollywood myth about photographs, and are soon to hear some version of the immortal line, "Can you enhance that?" (It used to be "can you blow that up some more?" but times have changed...well, at least a little.)

Sure enough, the feckless dramaturge later shows us a technician clattering away at the keyboard of a laptop, by which time we are able to see that the shadowy figures in the distant window, though still barely resolved, may be up to no good. "That's about as good as I can get it...in analog," says the technician.

"What about...digital?" Asks the redheaded crime-fighter, portentously.

Oh, puh-LEEEEZ. You'll recall that in a recent, tragic real-life crime, an innocent young girl, walking home, was accosted by a grown man and led off to her death, and the abduction was captured on a surveillance videotape. No less an institution than NASA was called in on that real-life investigation and asked to "enhance" the surveillance tape. They weren't able to, of course.

What, don't they watch television?

Cameras cannot resolve more detail than they have captured. Yet this same plot device has been part of the screenwriter's bin of tricks for decades, because, evidently, screenwriters only read other screenplays. Note to screenwriters: CUT IT OUT. It's dumb. It doesn't work that way. (And note to makers of surveillance cameras: your cameras need better resolution.)

As a curmudgeonly aside, has it occurred to anyone else that TV routinely portrays just exactly the kind of police departments that a democratic society doesn't want? Week in, week out, we watch them break procedural rules, brutalize suspects, and violate peoples' civil rights right and left. These little plot liberties are always righteous, excused by the fact that the omniscient viewer knows they're justified, but if, say, Andy Sippowitz (of "NYPD Blue") is representative of real detectives, then this society is about two hops and a half-step from unbounded Nazism. Harrumph. Glad I got that off my chest.

Anyway, at the denouement of the "CSI Miami" episode, the shadowy figures in the distant window have become a recognizable woman being shot in the head by a recognizable man, whom our one-man Justice League convicts using an 8x10 of a scar on the suspect's hand, if you can believe that, in what must have been something like a 4,000X enlargement.

I don't know — maybe that dead paparazzi used a Canon DSLR from the future, you think?

quote:

Op maandag 22 maart 2004 16:50 schreef blablasjit het volgende:
ik vind hem wel erg zeiken hoor. het is maar een serie... tuurlijk word daar een beetje overdreven. Dat maakt het juist extra leuk... en dat is nou puur televisie!

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 maart 2004 07:35 schreef stefimke het volgende:

[..]

Mjah.... je kunt je misschien voorstellen dat iemand die al 40 jaar ofzo met fotografie bezig is zich elke keer weer ergert aan "can you enhance/blow that!?" en dat dan opeens de meest wazige, korrilige, donkere opnamens opeens een DVD-kwaliteit krijgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 maart 2004 07:35 schreef stefimke het volgende:

[..]

Mjah.... je kunt je misschien voorstellen dat iemand die al 40 jaar ofzo met fotografie bezig is zich elke keer weer ergert aan "can you enhance/blow that!?" en dat dan opeens de meest wazige, korrilige, donkere opnamens opeens een DVD-kwaliteit krijgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 23 maart 2004 11:32 schreef blablasjit het volgende:

[..]

tuurlijk... maar geen elke televisie serie klopt precies. daarom heet het televisie... en als hij zich er zo aan ergerd waarom kijkt hij het dan ???
maar het is te snappen van iemand die van fotografoe houd en het als een bedreiging vind...

quote:

Op woensdag 17 maart 2004 19:52 schreef Dafje33 het volgende:

[..]

Ze is er erg op bekomen in de tweede serie!