Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

The worst thing I've ever seen in a TV show.


Recommended Posts

This kind of thing is pretty common in television and movies.  If you don't know any better, it might seem plausible.  Having worked in television news for years, I can say that I have never, not once, seen an accurate portrayal of broadcast news, tv reporters, or how a newsroom actually operates in a movie or TV show.  My girlfriend is a research scientist, and she feels the same way when it comes to the portrayal of research or science in television.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Bulge_Lover said:

Alright lads and lasses, I'm here to RANT. Last night I saw the most ridiculous shit ever.

So there's this series on Fox called 9-1-1. Long story short, it's a fictional drama show about emergency services responding to random emergencies. Features mainly fire, but also police and EMTs. Recently they started a spinoff called 9-1-1 Lone Star which of course takes place in Texas. This show is the guilty party. It's on Hulu if you want to witness this nonsense.

In the last episode, one of the emergencies involved a man and a woman taking part in a steak eating contest where they had to inhale a giant steak for a place on a restaurant's wall. The woman is chugging water after every couple bites to get the steak down. After she wins the contest, she passes out and 911 is called.

EMS shows up, finds her bladder extremely distended, she's all delusional, they say she's suffering from water intoxication, have to catheterize her on the spot because they say her bladder would rupture otherwise, and she proceeds to spray pee a dozen feet through the air. She's immediately fine afterwards.

Now for those of you who are properly cultured on the subject, you understand how unfathomably wrong all of this is.

1: It takes well over an hour for consumed liquid to reach the bladder. Even if she did actually have water intoxication, her bladder would not be anywhere near full in the ~15 minutes this event took place over.

2: The pitcher of water that she consumed was clearly no larger than a liter, maybe a liter and a half. It takes well over a gallon of water in an extremely short period of time to cause water intoxication. Also, intoxication occurs due to overconsumption of water without any nutrients to balance it out. With food, it would take even more water to cause it.

3: Even if we pretend that the magical instant-filling bladder and way-too-fast water intoxication were both real, emptying the bladder would NOT magically cure it. Intoxication has nothing to do with the bladder, it causes swelling of the brain.

4: Absolutely no explanation is offered as to why she didn't just pee herself.

5: When catheterized, urine flows very slowly with the natural shrinking of the bladder. It's not a goddamn pressure-washer. Yes, powerpissing exists, but that's from women intentionally and strongly using their muscles to force it out, while this woman was unconscious and definitely not doing that.

I know that this isn't all that important, but like... Shit man, they just BUTCHERED a scene like that. This must be what it feels like for doctors to watch House or officers to watch any cop show. I don't know a lot, but I DO know pee, and I am ashamed for whoever wrote the atrocious fuckin' boil on the face of reality that scene was. 

Goddamn.

Eh didn't bother me that much, can't expect a TV show to be 100% accurate in medical areas, if you get pissed at every show that has medical errors well you won't be watching much of anything at all really.

34 minutes ago, TVGuy said:

This kind of thing is pretty common in television and movies.  If you don't know any better, it might seem plausible.  Having worked in television news for years, I can say that I have never, not once, seen an accurate portrayal of broadcast news, tv reporters, or how a newsroom actually operates in a movie or TV show.  My girlfriend is a research scientist, and she feels the same way when it comes to the portrayal of research or science in television.

Exactly, there's a reason it's not 100% accurate-cause if it was it would frankly be quite boring, the jobs i've had haven't been correctly depicted in media either but I couldn't care less, frankly the last thing I wanted to see after I got home from work was an exact depiction of what i'd just gone through, i'd have been bored to tears by that.

Link to comment

I’m a software developer, and neither that nor anything else computer-related is ever realistically portrayed in TV & movies. Hell, EVERYONE now knows what a login prompt looks like, except, apparently, directors & writers.

I’m also a physics graduate, with a strong background in astronomy, and even Star Trek writers can’t get the scale of space anywhere close to realistic. If they did, Captain Kirk would have completed his 5-year mission without ever meeting a Klingon, Romulan or anyone else.

I’m NOT knowledgeable about guns, but even I know that 007 shouldn’t be able to hold his own against 3 guys with submachine guns, using only his Walther PPK. Nor should he be able to death-leap off a cliff behind an aeroplane and manage to get into it and get it under control before it crashes. Clearly, he, not Clark Kent, is Superman’s real secret identity.

So I don’t get particularly stressed about things being poorly handled in TV dramas and films. I do, however, reserve the right to express myself sarcastically, when talking about the lack of realism.

Link to comment

I fuckin' saw this episode the other day!  My husband and I watch the original and we live in Dallas, so we were thrilled to see a spinoff set in the great state of Texas!  But we're watching the episode, both of us looking awfully quizzically at the TV, and then my husband turns to me and says "Uh...no?  And that didn't even do anything for you, did it?"  

😂😂😂

I will also say that half the fun of watching those overproduced shows is yelling at the TV for all the shit they get wrong.  My degree is in criminal justice, I hold certification in evidence collection and I worked property crimes at a police department in college (they look like regular office buildings inside the secured areas, y'all...cubicles, bland art and everything).  My husband has a 20 year background in IT and currently works for an animation studio that uses complex image-manipulation software on the regular.  Between the two of us, we're pretty much constantly yelling "that's not the way that works!"  It's entertaining for us though, we have a good time with it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, d418 said:

I’m NOT knowledgeable about guns, but even I know that 007 shouldn’t be able to hold his own against 3 guys with submachine guns, using only his Walther PPK.

This is absolutely possible with the right tactics, but certainly not how it's portrayed in movies. Scenes like this could be plausible if they changed the choreography, but they never really do...

Link to comment

Since everybody else here has pointed out how obviously you can't expect every screenwriter to do the most extensive research, especially something like pee that most would think of as unusual if not disgusting, and take creative liberties.

This little rant may just be the single best advertisment for at least an episode of that show I've ever seen. (Even though I can tell that it's probably not as sexy as I'm imagining it to be.)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, youromofantasy said:

I fuckin' saw this episode the other day!  My husband and I watch the original and we live in Dallas, so we were thrilled to see a spinoff set in the great state of Texas!  But we're watching the episode, both of us looking awfully quizzically at the TV, and then my husband turns to me and says "Uh...no?  And that didn't even do anything for you, did it?"  

😂😂😂

I will also say that half the fun of watching those overproduced shows is yelling at the TV for all the shit they get wrong.  My degree is in criminal justice, I hold certification in evidence collection and I worked property crimes at a police department in college (they look like regular office buildings inside the secured areas, y'all...cubicles, bland art and everything).  My husband has a 20 year background in IT and currently works for an animation studio that uses complex image-manipulation software on the regular.  Between the two of us, we're pretty much constantly yelling "that's not the way that works!"  It's entertaining for us though, we have a good time with it.

I've got an associates degree in criminal justice myself and I know shows like CSI are unrealistic as hell but I couldn't care less, even The Wire takes some liberties so that you don't end up with a boring show no one wants to watch.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, tits said:

why would you expect television and film to be realistic?

and how does realism serve it's primary purpose of entertainment? 

Lack of realism can be distracting. When you watch fiction, you are having to suspend your disbelief and go along with the story. Anything which is unrealistic can break that suspension of disbelief and remind you that it’s not real. If the unrealism is too frequent or too obvious, it can ruin the whole story, and make it seem ridiculous.

Link to comment
On 1/30/2020 at 8:39 PM, TVGuy said:

This kind of thing is pretty common in television and movies.  If you don't know any better, it might seem plausible.  Having worked in television news for years, I can say that I have never, not once, seen an accurate portrayal of broadcast news, tv reporters, or how a newsroom actually operates in a movie or TV show.  My girlfriend is a research scientist, and she feels the same way when it comes to the portrayal of research or science in television.

I'm not anything close to a doctor or biologist and I don't personally do urine holds, and even I can tell this is completely retarded from the summary he gave. There's a difference between something that only specialists would know and something where they really should know better.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the 1976 film Network; it's obviously not supposed to be a remotely authentic portrayal of a TV news programme, but I do think it's quite a prescient satire of the era's culture.

As for my personal views on realism, I'm a physicist by education and I absolutely expect physics in film and TV to be reasonably accurate, except for the purposes of absurd comedy.

Edited by PooSkirt (see edit history)
Link to comment
1 hour ago, PooSkirt said:

I'm not anything close to a doctor or biologist and I don't personally do urine holds, and even I can tell this is completely retarded from the summary he gave. There's a difference between something that only specialists would know and something where they really should know better.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the 1976 film Network; it's obviously not supposed to be a remotely authentic portrayal of a TV news programme, but I do think it's quite a prescient satire of the era's culture.

As for my personal views on realism, I'm a physicist by education and I absolutely expect physics in film and TV to be reasonably accurate, except for the purposes of absurd comedy.

I personally don't, otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy over-the-top summer blockbuster films.

Link to comment
On 1/30/2020 at 1:12 PM, LifeIsStrange said:

Exactly, there's a reason it's not 100% accurate-cause if it was it would frankly be quite boring, the jobs i've had haven't been correctly depicted in media either but I couldn't care less, frankly the last thing I wanted to see after I got home from work was an exact depiction of what i'd just gone through, i'd have been bored to tears by that.

The issue, I think, is when people don't know any better and they assume the media portrayals they are seeing are reasonably accurate.  I have had people unload all manner of rage and hate at me based on their idea of what my job was, having no clue how television news actually operated.  In one incident, I was actually stabbed in the back, literally, at a man who was irate at broadcast news.  In other areas, where people make medical, financial, or legal decisions based on ideas they have about these fields that are informed by fictional portrayals, you can have actual harm done.

 

On 1/31/2020 at 1:43 PM, tits said:

why would you expect television and film to be realistic?

and how does realism serve it's primary purpose of entertainment? 

A television show, film, or novel should be realistic to its own universe.  Otherwise, the audience will feel cheated.  A story teller, regardless of the medium, gets to create the world in which their story is set.  But for us to suspend our disbelief and get lost in that story the world must be consistent and have its own set of rules.  We can read and enjoy books like Harry Potter, despite all the fantastical and unrealistic elements, because the story manages to be realistic to the universe in which it is set.

The problem is when a story purports to be set in our universe, and then violates the rules of our universe. Instead of creating a world for the story to exist in, we are told the story exists in our world, but then goes on to break reality.  At that point you are either relying on your audience to be so ignorant that they don't know you got it wrong, or you just don't care enough to try to keep your story consistent.  Either way, you risk loosing your audience as it becomes really hard for them to continue with the story when there is such a glaring reminder of its falsehood staring at you.

2 hours ago, PooSkirt said:

I'm not anything close to a doctor or biologist and I don't personally do urine holds, and even I can tell this is completely retarded from the summary he gave. There's a difference between something that only specialists would know and something where they really should know better.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the 1976 film Network; it's obviously not supposed to be a remotely authentic portrayal of a TV news programme, but I do think it's quite a prescient satire of the era's culture.

As for my personal views on realism, I'm a physicist by education and I absolutely expect physics in film and TV to be reasonably accurate, except for the purposes of absurd comedy.

Unfortunately, I can not offer much of an opinion on Network.  I was not around in any shape or form in 1976, and my television career didn't start until decades later.  How TV news worked in 1976 is a universe apart from how it worked in the 2000's and 2010's, when I was involved with it.

As far as physics in film goes, I completely agree.  Especially when the bad physics is just a matter of sheer laziness, and not critical to the story.  My girlfriend tends to get really annoyed at my need to point out what they got wrong in terms of the physics in movies and TV shows, so I'm trying not to do it as much.  However, we have been watching Avenue 5 on HBO lately and it has been really hard for me not to say anything about it.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, TVGuy said:

The issue, I think, is when people don't know any better and they assume the media portrayals they are seeing are reasonably accurate.  I have had people unload all manner of rage and hate at me based on their idea of what my job was, having no clue how television news actually operated.  In one incident, I was actually stabbed in the back, literally, at a man who was irate at broadcast news.  In other areas, where people make medical, financial, or legal decisions based on ideas they have about these fields that are informed by fictional portrayals, you can have actual harm done.

 

A television show, film, or novel should be realistic to its own universe.  Otherwise, the audience will feel cheated.  A story teller, regardless of the medium, gets to create the world in which their story is set.  But for us to suspend our disbelief and get lost in that story the world must be consistent and have its own set of rules.  We can read and enjoy books like Harry Potter, despite all the fantastical and unrealistic elements, because the story manages to be realistic to the universe in which it is set.

The problem is when a story purports to be set in our universe, and then violates the rules of our universe. Instead of creating a world for the story to exist in, we are told the story exists in our world, but then goes on to break reality.  At that point you are either relying on your audience to be so ignorant that they don't know you got it wrong, or you just don't care enough to try to keep your story consistent.  Either way, you risk loosing your audience as it becomes really hard for them to continue with the story when there is such a glaring reminder of its falsehood staring at you.

Unfortunately, I can not offer much of an opinion on Network.  I was not around in any shape or form in 1976, and my television career didn't start until decades later.  How TV news worked in 1976 is a universe apart from how it worked in the 2000's and 2010's, when I was involved with it.

As far as physics in film goes, I completely agree.  Especially when the bad physics is just a matter of sheer laziness, and not critical to the story.  My girlfriend tends to get really annoyed at my need to point out what they got wrong in terms of the physics in movies and TV shows, so I'm trying not to do it as much.  However, we have been watching Avenue 5 on HBO lately and it has been really hard for me not to say anything about it.

Well I wouldn't blame fictional media for people being idiots and assuming that everything on TV is true, that's venturing a bit too close to Jack Thompson-territory for my liking.  Sorry but I don't have much sympathy for people that make major life decisions based on fictional media(I will however criticize inaccurate news reports for misinforming people since they carry an authenticity to them that fictional media does not)i'm a little tired of people being too afraid to say that some people that ruined their lives trying to imitate a damn TV show(like those idiots that tried to recreate stunts on Jackass despite the numerous warnings NOT to do so) are ya know idiots and that the people creating the fictional media shouldn't be held responsible just because a small fraction of people are stupid enough to imitate them.

If you're going to go into financial ruin or whatever because you blindly took advice from a fictional TV show, you need serious help.  

I'm glad i'm not a psychics expert at all, i'd be one miserable son of a bitch if I was constantly nitpicking damn near everything relating to physics in a fictional show.  If everything used realistic physics it'd be boring as fuck.

15 minutes ago, tits said:

this has got to be the most cringe thread ever. PLEASE take it to reddit guys. that's the place for people who think they are smart.

Agreed, I really don't get people who are super serious about physics being realistic in films and TV shows.

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment

While I'm not one to let glaring departures from reality ruin my enjoyment of otherwise entertaining media, I do appreciate when writers put in the effort to make their supposedly set in the real world works feel like they actually take place in the real world or to make their fantasy world feel like it actually has consistent rules.

Also, it's a false dichotomy to say that a work of fiction can be realistic or entertaining, but not both, and I'd argue a story being hyper-realistic but boring is just as much a sign of bad writing as a story being exciting but full of inconsistencies and non-sensical in-verse physics and biology.

As to the OP's example, while I'm pretty sure I've read plenty of stuff in the fiction section of this very forum that took just as much, if not more liberties with the anatomy of urination, assuming the show in question is suppose to be a drama and not an over the top comedy, I'd have to agree this is well beyond what I'd call an acceptable break from reality. Make the amount of meat something rediculous, make it seem like the contest takes a few hours with the woman going through multiple pitchers of water along the way, and perhaps switch to declaring her suffering from urine retention complicated by the long hold, and the treatment and immediate relief would seem at least somewhat plausible... Probably still bullshit a urologist would smell a mile away, but at least it's a re-write that sounds like the writers did at least some basic fact checking on Wikipedia.

Link to comment

I see your point, lifeisstrange, but in this case I see little reason why 911 couldn’t have portrayed the scene more accurately. For a tv show to be entertaining, it has to effectively suspend disbelief- I think a scene this ridiculous is more likely to take viewers out of the action than add to the drama. 

Further, absolving creators of responsibility for their shows’ content overlooks the more subtle ways tv can be used to shape public opinion. Entertainment can be harmful, just look at racist cartoons Walt Disney made during wwII. Nobody here is saying we should take tv literally, but not everyone has a thing for omo, or much bio knowledge. Some people might just accept that this is how water intoxication works.  

I’d say this serves as a mild and pee-tinged example of how tv can spread misinformation. 
 

my conclusion: hire more kinky tv writers. Would help so much.

 

Edited by Jon454
Missed a word (see edit history)
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Jon454 said:

I see your point, lifeisstrange, but in this case I see little reason why 911 couldn’t have portrayed the scene more accurately. For a tv show to be entertaining, it has to effectively suspend disbelief- I think a scene this ridiculous is more likely to take viewers out of the action than add to the drama. 

Further, absolving creators of responsibility for their shows’ content overlooks the more subtle ways tv can be used to shape public opinion. Entertainment can be harmful, just look at racist cartoons Walt Disney made during wwII. Nobody here is saying we should take tv literally, but not everyone has a thing for omo, or much bio knowledge. Some people might just accept that this is how water intoxication works.  

I’d say this serves as a mild and pee-tinged example of how tv can spread misinformation. 
 

my conclusion: hire more kinky tv writers. Would help so much.

 

See I don't think those cartoons actually did much at all to sway public opinion, it was much moreso the government as they were the ones spreading racist propaganda and since they were in charge of the country a lot of people believed them.  News can shape public opinion but I don't know about fictional content so much.  I've yet to see any studies that prove watching fictional content makes you more racist or sexist or whatever.

Personally I didn't find that scene all that ridiculous, i've seen stranger things in real life so I could suspend my disbelief just fine.  

Edited by LifeIsStrange (see edit history)
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...