DVDizzy Forum

I don't know if this is more appropriate for the off-topic forum or not so...


I see many use a show's realism or lack of as a point of criticism or praise in a show. I was inspired to make this thread because of the discussion in the Skins thread about how the level realism makes the show better or worse. I personally watch a show for entertainment and not for it's realism level. I'm not going to criticize a show for lacking realism. To me a show doesn't have to be realistic to be good.

Take a look at Disney Channel shows for example. People criticize them for not being realistic. Why? Why do they have to be realistic? I've seen people say that a kid should be exposed to it so they know that there's bad in the world. What a bunch of BS. High School Musical was criticized because they believe kids will think High School is all about singing and dancing. Really? Kids aren't stupid. Do you really think they think that real life is a musical? They don't need to be exposed to the horrors of High School in it either. Should they be told High School is all bad when that's not true either?

What do you think?

I'll tell you one thing - true realism has been SORELY lacking from a great many of these intolerable detective / cop / police shows for almost 2 decades now. I point my finger at everything from NYPD Blue, Nash Bridges, Walker: Texas Ranger, Criminal Minds, C.S.I. (especially Miami), N.C.I.S., Medium, the Law & Order spin-offs / sequels, that new show with Donnie Wahlberg, etc. They are designed to get audiences to be shocked, saddened, etc. But if anyone reacts that way to any of the shows I've just mentioned (with the possible exception of maybe the first half of NYPD)... well, I can't finish that sentence. But shows like these pretty much killed this genre for me. Everything since would be laughable if they weren't so damn boring. But it all evens out, as I think this same problem existed in other types of drama shows. Like... oh, I dunno: Touched by an Angel, Party of Five, Beverly Hills 90210, Seventh Heaven, Dawson's Creek, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, Gilmore Girls, Army Wives, etc.

How much realer do they have to be? I would say in human characterization alone, there's a lot of room for improvement. All they really need to do is stop treating people like insulting stereotypes. I mean, usually they only take the time to flesh out their main characters and then, the people they're trying to help / save, befriend, rebuild a relationship with, or catch, prove guilty, and put in jail are all window dressing. Cardboard cut-outs, even some of the main characters are. I don't care if the stories aren't violent enough. But I can't stand how cliched and predictable the drama scenes are. I am telling you - when I have to suffer through the shows mentioned above, I can finish almost every single person's sentence before they do. When did the climate in TrashTV change from family sitcoms (Full House, Step by Step, Family Matters) to cop dramas? (Oh, reality TV is still trash but I think its' audaciousness has easily been since topped by Crime TV!)

"Realism" is not what a show needs to be successful, but writing and acting should be of a sufficient quality so that it doesn't sound forced and even more fake then it should. An engaging story (on TV or film) will have characters, situations and feelings that appear true regardless of the level of fiction surrounding them. That is the kind of realism a show needs to have to be good.

I personally watch a television show for its entertainment quotient and most of those shows that Lazario is turned off by I really like. Some of my favorite shows include NCIS, NCIS Los Angeles, Criminal Minds, CSI, CSI New York, CSI Miami, Blue Bloods and when it was on, 24. To me I have brothers in law enforcement who tell me about how far off the NCIS shows are, and how CSI is sped up to meet their time constraints. But I have a sister who is in forensics in Sacramento, and she says the procedures they show you on CSI or good, but the results take a lot longer than they do for the realism of television.

Entertainment comes first for me in almost everything I watch on television. That's why I watch American Idol, America's Got Talent, and shows of that ilk. I refuse to watch so-called reality shows like Survivor, Big Brother, and those sick shows on MTV that are all scripted word for word. Even Snookie can't fight that fact.

Well, almost all television sucks anyway in my opinion. In the realm of all that encompases entertainment - film, music, literature, television, games - TV is the weakest link and always has been.

Oh and by the way, where is the entertainment value in "realistic" shows anyway? Are they trying to make us live someone else's life? Then why do all the lives they want to make us live bite so much? There's no question these days, comedy is the best genre on the tube. And no, American Idol and Glee don't count as comedy.

It all depends on what kind of tv show we're talking about. I mean, sitcoms don't have to be realistic. That is, they don't have to mimic real life and there can be situations and characters that you would never see in real life. But within the universe of the sitcom, there has to be some consistency. If a show is all over the place, it's hard for the audience to follow what's going on. So even for sitcoms (or soap operas, for instance) there are certain linits, but generally speaking realism isn't very important.

Sometimes a show does need a lot of realism for it to be engaging and to keep people watching. Take The West Wing, for example. Now we'll never know what exactly goes on in the White House, but in order for the audience to keep watching, it has to present a plausible and acceptable version of the events taking place in the West Wing. That's why the creators made use of some external advisers (like an adviser to the Clinton administration) to make sure they didn't make fools out of themselves. (Although an administration as left-wing as Bartlet's could sadly never exist in real-life.)

And then there are shows like Twin Peaks, which have a whole own, unique internal logic. Is the show realistic? No, not at all! But within the universe of Twin Peaks, what's happening does make sense and can't be changed all of a sudden. So, there is a certain degree of realism within an unrealistic show.

And then there's Monty Python...

the entertainmen value comes from the writing and the situations the characters face. even Skins has moments that seem a bit comical, whether put into context or not. The true value of that show is the drama, which is in a rare case enforced by a lack of glamorized fantasy that's become common in television.

IMO, it's not realism or fantasy that matter, but the characters. If you truly care about the characters and their plights, that's what makes a show like skins good.

I also like Smallville for the entertainment value as well as it's characters. That show, like what Goliath said about Twin Peaks, exists in a DC Universe(excuse the videogame reference). It's plot twists and character arcs just plain *arent* gonna happen in real life. but hey, it's still got humanity.

And then there's absurd comedies like Monty Python and even SNL.

It's too broad a canvas to explore. "Realism" means different things to different people.

However, very little drama is "realistic" - it's heightened. There are of course exceptions to every rule, but nobody would watch any drama that was a true representation of an ordinary person's life.

UK soaps, unlike the flashier US ones, tend to be regarded as being about realistic people and situations. But they're not - they're really not. Coronation Street must have more murderers per square foot than any other street in the world!

Even the Trueman Show movie (if I recall correctly) dipicts that Trueman is being guided and manipulated by the cast that surrounds him - for a show that's supposedly about a real person living a real-life, that still needed to be artificially "heightened" to remain popular.

It's not important that Skins is "realistic" - that shouldn't be it's claim to fame, what matters is if it has something to say that's worthwhile. That's what I think drama is - a method of commenting on our lives through made-up other lives. Skins is pretty straight forward. Nothing in it is outrageous as such - you're not going to have a character kidnapped by a UFO for example - but it's realism is compromised by so many events happening to so small a group, all of which share some form of connection with each other. But does this matter? I don't think it does.

Buffy is the opposite. There totally outrageous things would happen - dramatic and comic. But the show had its own internal logic and it used metaphors to address similar issues to what Skins is addressing straight on. So in Buffy we had Buffy's mother seeing another man who was emotionally repressed control freak and he turned out to be a robot. Or Buffy sleeping with her boyfriend and immediately afterwards he turns into a monster. Or Willow becoming addicted to magic. Skins would simply show a character gaining an emotionally repressed, control freak step-father, or have a guy turn into an asshole after finally getting what he wanted by sleeping with a girl, or show a character struggling with a real drugs addiction.

Both forms of drama are perfectly acceptable and valid.

Well, I dont think any of us were denying that drama gets heightened. Even in true life stories, such as Remember the Titans, events are rearranged and altered and characters are added/changed/deleted,etc.

You all make some really good points. It's understandable how realism would matter in shows like Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, etc. What about in terms of Disney Channel and Nickelodeon? There seems to be a big debate in terms of that.

Those are for kids. Thought you were talking about Adult programming.

Goliath wrote: But within the universe of Twin Peaks, what's happening does make sense and can't be changed all of a sudden. So, there is a certain degree of realism within an unrealistic show.

Oh, definitely. As long as it makes sense within the show, I don't care if it would never happen in real life.

And I absolutely love Law and Order: SVU. Do I know it isn't realistic? Of course! It's television. I wouldn't want to watch something that is completely and utterly real, because that would be boring. As long as the show makes sense within its universe, it has enjoyable characters, and an interesting plot, I really could not care less if it is something that would happen in real life.

The_Iceflash wrote:What about in terms of Disney Channel and Nickelodeon? There seems to be a big debate in terms of that.

Glad you asked. 'Kids shows' need not be unrealistic to be good entertainment. The Disney Channel shows (from the few instance I've seen them whilst flipping the channels) are highly artificial. The characters live in a made-up 'reality'; the situations they find themselves in are very contrived; and the over-acting would make Nick Cage look like the best method actor of all time in comparison.

Canadian tv has shown it doesn't need to be this way with shows aimed at (pre-)teen girls. Take the show Ready or not. It proves can have a highly realistic show about life as a (pre-)teen girl and still be entertaining. I watched that show as a teenage boy, even though it's about two girls who face typical girl problems! And I'm not a bit ashamed to admit it, nor that I rewatched the whole series last year on YouTube. Because it's a damn good show, with good writing, believable scripts, realistic acting and above all: 'sincerity' and 'integrity'. And those are the key words missing when describing the Disney Channel shows. Ready or not (following the lives of two polar opposite best friends through elementary school and junior high) has a simple formula: make real life as funny or dramatic as possible, but always staying within the boundaries of believability.

Disney Channel could never produce such a show. Because it would involve taking its audience seriously and not talking down to them. Ready or not dealt with issues such as divorce, adultry (of parents), sexuality, discrimination, death, religion and many other issues. And often, at the end of an episode, a problem facing the main characters would not be resolved. They had no easy escapes or deus ex machinas, like you see in most (pre-)teen shows. No tidy wrap-ups, not everything turned out fine in the end. I like that: life is just like that. But that is not what Disney does. Not that I blame them. It's just not their way.


<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/fsREO ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/fsREO ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

The way I see it, so long as a good show preserves it's own internal logic, it really doesn't matter how out-there it is, because it will always make sense to its' viewers. As for how good the show is, it really comes down to character portrayal. Shows like Lost and Buffy succeeded so well because the voices of their characters were always very clear and consistant, making the characters feel very real.

Goliath wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:What about in terms of Disney Channel and Nickelodeon? There seems to be a big debate in terms of that.

Glad you asked. 'Kids shows' need not be unrealistic to be good entertainment. The Disney Channel shows (from the few instance I've seen them whilst flipping the channels) are highly artificial. The characters live in a made-up 'reality'; the situations they find themselves in are very contrived; and the over-acting would make Nick Cage look like the best method actor of all time in comparison.

Canadian tv has shown it doesn't need to be this way with shows aimed at (pre-)teen girls. Take the show Ready or not. It proves can have a highly realistic show about life as a (pre-)teen girl and still be entertaining. I watched that show as a teenage boy, even though it's about two girls who face typical girl problems! And I'm not a bit ashamed to admit it, nor that I rewatched the whole series last year on YouTube. Because it's a damn good show, with good writing, believable scripts, realistic acting and above all: 'sincerity' and 'integrity'. And those are the key words missing when describing the Disney Channel shows. Ready or not (following the lives of two polar opposite best friends through elementary school and junior high) has a simple formula: make real life as funny or dramatic as possible, but always staying within the boundaries of believability.

Disney Channel could never produce such a show. Because it would involve taking its audience seriously and not talking down to them. Ready or not dealt with issues such as divorce, adultry (of parents), sexuality, discrimination, death, religion and many other issues. And often, at the end of an episode, a problem facing the main characters would not be resolved. They had no easy escapes or deus ex machinas, like you see in most (pre-)teen shows. No tidy wrap-ups, not everything turned out fine in the end. I like that: life is just like that. But that is not what Disney does. Not that I blame them. It's just not their way.


<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/fsREO ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/fsREO ... 1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

Good points. Question though, how many of those issues really need to be addressed in pre-teen shows particularly on the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon? Degrassi for example hits a lot of these issues and I really like the show but I can't help but think that Disney Channel and Nickelodeon (Not Teen Nick) aren't the platforms I would like to see such a thing on. Let's be honest, many of the issues that are shown on Degrassi wouldn't even be comprehendible to much of the audience of those stations. Some issues are.

The_Iceflash wrote:Good points. Question though, how many of those issues really need to be addressed in pre-teen shows particularly on the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon? [...] Let's be honest, many of the issues that are shown on Degrassi wouldn't even be comprehendible to much of the audience of those stations. Some issues are.

There are really no issues that 'need' to be adressed in the Disney Channel shows. If Disney is fine with churning out second-rate comedies, aimed at (pre)teen girls, without any heart or soul, simply to make quick money, that's a legitimate choice. I'm not saying Disney should be preaching to its audience. Ready or Not didn't preach. It just showed. Look, over-the-top, highly contrived 'comedies' is what Disney Channel does best these days. They're making good money of it. But it has slowly been destroying the Disney image. My Dutch friends are baffled they never see actual Disney cartoons on something called the 'Disney' Channel, and they don't understand the appeal of these shows to anybody beyond the age of 15.

hey, dont insult 15 year olds. Not too many of them watch those shows either.

Anyway, a show does exist in it's own universe. Even cartoons do. Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Avatar, even Rugrats, and even Phineas and Ferb play by their own sets of rules. People who watch Avatar:TLA dont question for a moment why some people can levitate huge rocks or create fire out of thin air, because the rules of the show's universe explain the gist of it. Benders are born with such an ability, conveniently that which symbolizes the country they were born in, and they struggle with it and develop it as a talent and a martial art.

ajmrowland wrote:Anyway, a show does exist in it's own universe.

Creatively?

I can't always buy that because it's obvious a great many shows are completely heart-and-soul-less. Merely existing to make money. The reality-TV genre comes to mind. Game shows, once you scrape off the gimmicks. And of course, all those delightful shows displaying how stupid huge sections of America can be (Cops, Bad Girls Club, all those couple swapping shows, the parade of: let's get a group of 25 girls together and make them cat-fight over a man / celebrity, etc).

Lazario wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:Anyway, a show does exist in it's own universe.

Creatively?

I can't always buy that because it's obvious a great many shows are completely heart-and-soul-less. Merely existing to make money. The reality-TV genre comes to mind. Game shows, once you scrape off the gimmicks. And of course, all those delightful shows displaying how stupid huge sections of America can be (Cops, Bad Girls Club, all those couple swapping shows, the parade of: let's get a group of 25 girls together and make them cat-fight over a man / celebrity, etc).

Well......dramatically and/or creatively. Creatively being the show establishes it's own rules and works within those rules.

Dramatically meaning it can be in the real world, but also be fictionalized.