“Why do writers write? Because it isn’t there.”
-Thomas Berger
So, I watched Blue Bloods, a new show that aired on CBS this past week. Okay, so that’s not entirely true — I watched some of Blue Bloods. I should preface this review with: since I didn’t finish watching the episode, I don’t know if it gained back its credibility or not. But partway into the episode, I turned it off simply because I thought it was a waste of my time if I wasn’t going to enjoy it.
Let me paint the picture… A little girl was kidnapped. The detectives found a doll (about the size of a Cabbage Patch Kid, I guess) at the scene. The parents of the little girl said they had never seen it before, so the detectives conclude the kidnappers probably lured the girl using this doll. They run the doll for prints. They found none. Perfectly fine up until then.
Since there was no prints or evidence of any kind on the doll, it’s assumed that the kidnappers used gloves. Also, very fine, very plausible. Very smart of the kidnappers.
The detectives do some digging on the doll and trace down the manufacturer to find out where the doll can be bought and whatnot, and they discover that it’s a prototype and only a few people have access to it.
…
…
…
Are you kidding me? I can overlook the dumb move of the kidnapper leaving the doll behind in the first place. So be it. But how in the world is the kidnapper smart enough to use gloves when dealing with the doll, yet idiotic enough to use a doll that hasn’t even hit the market?
It’s ridiculous and it didn’t sit right with me. Too many advancements in the plot are sometimes made at the expense of the characterization that was originally shown to us. Even CSI can sometimes be accused of finding that right evidence at the right time in a really coincidental way, but the criminals in that show aren’t really elevated to be smart. And that show has something else going for it: main characters I’ve come to care about (Blue Bloods’ characters didn’t really make me sympathize with them; they gave me no reason to stick around).
But why have a bad guy be smart in one scene and then completely drop the ball a couple of scenes later? That’s something to learn from right there. I’ve had to catch myself in my fiction sometimes. You want a certain action to happen, so you think it’s okay to bend a person’s character (or make them have a convenient “lapse of intelligence”). Does it progress the plot? Yes. Do you get to your desired result? Yes. Do the detectives solve the case? Probably. But do you really want to get all of those things by dumbing down the characters and hoping your readers (or viewers, as it were) just accept the idiocy?
Again, please note: This review comes from a viewer who did not finish watching the episode, so please forgive me if my review doesn’t stand true by episode’s end. 🙂
For a Writer's Growth 
I don’t think there’s any coming back from that on TV, considering what the show seems to be going for.
On the other hand: consider the Leopold & Loeb case in real life where the smart guy left his glasses at the scene, custom glasses that narrowed the range of suspects to the single digits. Perhaps our TV writer is trying to play off that?
Hey, David. Well, I thought I would give it the benefit of the doubt, you know? lol
And if the TV writer was going for shadowing that real life case or something similar, they didn’t pick an appropriate time to do so, in my eyes. This was the pilot; this is when you want to offer credibility to your readers and give them a reason to continue watching.
It’s like writing a novel. You have until the end of the first chapter (before that, actually) to hook the reader and give them a reason to stick around (whether it be curiosity, suspense, great characters, plot thickening, whatever). But if said first chapter is drowned with plausibility issues and one-dimensional characters, it’s likely the reader will put down the book. Save the risky stuff for later, when the audience forms a connection and doesn’t mind overlooking a few things.
I’m a bit of a snob when it comes to police procedurals (and CSI can’t carry Law & Order’s jock…at least in the latter’s heyday), but this isn’t that big a drop for me. Mind you I didn’t see it and there’s a lot of wrong ways to show the processing of evidence (probably the biggest weakness in Castle, which I love anyway), but this isn’t so far off. A prototype doll (especially one that’s been advertised) can make a better lure than any-old-doll. Smart criminals to use this. Smart to wear gloves. Dumb to leave it behind…but maybe something went wrong.
If this show is worth its salt (still a big question mark), the doll is a red herring and will lead them to someone who leads them to evidence that leads them to the kidnapper. It’s like House; if the first diagnosis is right, there’s not much of a show. Again, I didn’t watch it (and don’t plan to), but cops putting evidence together then later sorting out the flaws in the chain is how a lot of these shows function. Doing this _well_ is the tough part. Sounds like the characters could use a little more skepticism to score more believability.
Anyway, my two cents on the issue. I can’t afford to pick up another show to follow (already tempted by No Ordinary Family and The Event), so I will likely never know how good or bad it is.
Hey, Scott, thanks for dropping by.
I agree — a prototype doll WOULD make a better lure than a doll that’s been out for ages. I haven’t thought of that. But, yeah, the character-work in the show (to me) wasn’t all of that. They tried to make it about family and stuff like that but I wasn’t interested. I watched the pilot of Brothers & Sisters when it premiered and — although I don’t watch the show so I can’t comment on its current status — the characters in that show were appealing.
And not to overload your show-watching, but the first episode of No Ordinary Family, to me, wasn’t bad. I was concerned that it would be a little campy (as I found Fantastic Four to be) but I’m gonna continue watching it to see if I enjoy it past the first episode.