Television is one of my closest friends. I wish I could say the friendship has been smooth sailing from the start, but there have been a lot of times where TV has really let me down. Still when I'm lonely it's always there to shower me with technicolor love. That said there are some things I wish TV would just stop doing over and over. Sure sometimes these tricks are effective. Most of the time they're tired and predictable. I know most of television's strength comes from a well used formula. Most of the time that formula is comforting and safe. Then there are the times when it becomes just another cliche. Much like that one episode of Three's Company where there is a misunderstanding. These are some of the things that TV needs to stop overusing.
The main character of the show is suddenly visited by an old friend. They could have saved their life at some point or been a mentor. Even though the show has been on for five seasons and they've never mentioned this friend before, this visitor is (or at least was) very important to the main character. During the first act the main character and friend talk about old times, just to establish that this guest star was influential. Maybe it's was an old war buddy who saved your life by dragging you through the jungle to avoid Vietcong or maybe it's a teacher who taught you everything and you see yourself to be a younger version of them. Right at the beginning of the second act there is something that causes a bit of doubt by everyone else that maybe this friend isn't 100% good. This could be something like they had an affair with a recently murdered Chinese official or their company isn't doing everything by the book. Whatever the situation the main character doesn't want to believe that their dear friend/mentor/old flame/life saver person could do something so wrong. Inevitably the old friend did in fact do whatever they're suspected of. They have their reasons that they try to convey to the main character. There are some tears and sentimental music playing in the background as the main character struggles with the sense of betrayal or thought that everything they thought was good in the world was an illusion. Then the visiting character is never heard from again.
If the visiting character was so important how about a little bit of establishment prior to the single episode where they show up, say hi, murder the witness, and then explain their actions to the main character. Instead of telling us that this visitor is so important, why not show us. And not just with old photoshop pictures of the main character looking slightly younger and happy with the friend. I've known a lot of people in my life. Some more important than others. If someone reappeared from my past for a 43 minute period to reveal that they did something amoral it wouldn't make much of an impact on my life. Now if one of my closest friends, who I see on a regular basis, suddenly told me that they are Russian spy that would be a bit more shocking. Mostly because I don't think I know anyone with that kind of dedication to a lie (other than myself). It's gotten to the point now when I see a somewhat well-known TV actor appear as a blast from the past I'm just waiting to see what the disappointment is going to be, not if it's coming.
Let's say you're a mathematical genius or have firmly established over the course of four seasons and a two hour season premiere that you're good at whatever you do. Why is it when you come up with some "crazy" theory about something everyone around you suddenly doubts the words coming out of your mouth? Never mind the fact that just last week you were able to diagnose the skin discoloration as a rare form of some Amazonian disease just by noticing the patient had a fever. This week you say something that isn't painfully obvious to everyone else and it's as if you're in the pilot episode all over again. I know it's supposed to make for good drama and everything, but these are supposed to be real characters. How can seemingly smart FBI agents or medical doctors instantly revert back to being so dumb? Now sometimes the super genius star of the show couldn't be more wrong about something and that's where the supporting cast (or ensemble cast for those with inferiority complexes) steps in to help guide things to the right conclusion. I'm really tired of things like "you're just overreacting", "there is no proof to your theory", and "I think you may be in the throes of a psychological break". Can we get a little benefit of the doubt in these situations? Half the episode is spent discussing how the main character has flipped the script, then it's realized that maybe they were onto something, only to use the final ten minutes as a way to catch everyone else up to what was initially proposed. Let's find a new way to create tension that isn't predictable.
This next one is a little more tricky. Having watched a lot of non-serial television I've started recognizing faces. The guy on an episode of West Wing also shows up on CSI. It's not like Susan Sarandon or anything. It's just another television character actor. They just happen to have a pretty good agent who's getting their face out there. So what happens now is when I see these various faces pieces of the plot are being telegraphed ahead of time. When the guy who played the viscous murderer on Numbers is now on an episode of Castle as a quiet unassuming victim it's easy to know something is up. You know the character is going to have more than one scene, even though the detectives are pursuing other leads.
Speaking of leads, most murder investigations take weeks or longer. Same thing with medical diagnostics and evidence gathering. The process is most likely mind-numbingly boring to watch. So of course with only an hour to use certain things have to be sped up a bit. We're show two to three possible leads. The first one usually goes nowhere even though all the preliminary evidence points directly to Option A. This causes the team to rethink their case and move onto the second lead. There is a little deviation at this point. Either the second lead is nothing and it moves onto the third (or fourth or fifth) option or it swings back around to Option A again, but with a twist. The wife wasn't the victim, she was the murderer! More evidence gathering or witty banter between characters and the options are narrowed down to the correct one. Case solved. No one wants to watch a show where after all the theories are tried or computer simulations run there's no definitive answer to the problem. There's a reason why homicide detectives and doctors have backlogs. Not everything get solved right away. So let's not make it too easy every time.
The last one usually tries to be the most subtle of them all. The quirky main character has some personal situation going on. Meanwhile there's a new weekly case. Everything has been tried and it seems like there's no solution. Then while talking about the personal situation something is said that triggers a thought that leads to the solution. The writer is talking to his daughter about boy troubles, the little girl in the wheelchair thinks her dog is actually a bear, or the computer simulation that's been running on the supercomputer for the last three days spits out the exact answer. That's when you realize the whole point of the personal situation was just to tie up the episode's problem. I want to see something where the thing said in this week's episode has no bearing on the immediate problem, but is actually legitimate character building for the sake of making the character more real.
Sometimes they throw a twist at you, but for the most part television doesn't try too hard to be complex. It's very much like fast food. It's quick and easy and not exactly quality food, but it gets the job done. Still I keep watching and enjoying it. I just wish they would change it up a little bit.
