I've been looking through some recent episode discussion comments and pondering some things.

I think I've touched on this before, but it may be worthy of further discussion.

In recent episode discussions a number of comments have been made regarding.. what I guess would be realism issues... things like incorrect police procedures for example.

This got me thinking to why it didn't bother me back in the 80's and 90's but it does now.

I wonder if it's because we are overloaded with "reality TV" where so much focus is put on showing correct procedures and making things real that we've forgotten about just plain old good entertainment.

I know for myself, the car scene in Flames End with MacGyver looking through the exploded car, wouldn't have raised an eyebrow if it weren't for the fact that we have so many shows like CSI, where we see crime scenes sealed off and forensics people swarming over the area. Also we see this a lot on news items now too

Could it be that in the 80's and 90's we where more concerned with having a good entertaining storyline rather than how accurate and "real" things where?

Aren't witnesses allowed? They probably checked MacGyver out and he knew Tim Wexler. I guess because they knew each other and the then presumed dead Amy, they would let him be on the crime scene.

Well, for me the fact I was young enough to believe in such things as happy endings and that the good guys always won was a big factor. To me, back when I first saw MacGyver, it made total sense to me that MacGyver had full access to everything he needed without being challenged because he was MacGyver and was working to save the day. Why would anyone want to hinder him?
I had a big gap between first seeing the show on TV and then getting the DVD’s so I’ve always simply put the fact I notice them now down to the fact I am no longer a kid and know a bit more about the world and how things work. You might be on to something though; today’s shows do have more realism in them and also documentaries etc. following professionals as they work. I don’t remember shows like that back then.
Maybe some of those old enough to have a little more realism than I had when they first saw the show might be able to answer better.

Aren't witnesses allowed? They probably checked MacGyver out and he knew Tim Wexler. I guess because they knew each other and the then presumed dead Amy, they would let him be on the crime scene.

Thats not how police work. They don't allow anyone on a crime scene until the forensic people have collected all the evidence..

and did we see any forensic people in that scene? no. we did not.

as already mentioned.. in a real situation MacGyver would have been dragged off immediately to have a statement taken.

But thats not really what this discussion is aimed at.. so back to the real topic.

Aren't witnesses allowed? They probably checked MacGyver out and he knew Tim Wexler. I guess because they knew each other and the then presumed dead Amy, they would let him be on the crime scene.

Thats not how police work MG. They don't allow anyone on a crime scene until the forensic people have collected all the evidence..

and did you see any forensic people ion that scene? no. you did not.

as already mentioned.. in a real situation MacGyver would have been dragged off immediately to have a statement taken.

But thats not really what this discussion is aimed at.. so back to the real topic.

Been a long time since I saw that one. Like you said MacGyver would've been dragged off but we don't know if he already made his statement or not.

A good entertaining storyline was more important back than I thing than the accuracy of real things which is now more important. The world was different than. Besides showing it like it is in reality is a good way to seperate the fine line from fiction and reality.

Um.. how does making something look real show that it isn't real?

By making it show real enough?

*scratches head*

still not sure what your getting at with that one.

Personally, I don't care that much about realism. I can get over minor details in favor of a good entertaining storyline. It's television- it's not supposed to be totally realistic. I'd rather have some more unrealistic fantasy than any of the "reality" TV shows junk that airs now.

My father was a police officer, so I always got a running commentary about police procedures on every show I watched, but I have to admit that watching crime dramas (like CSI) now has educated me a bit more, even when they go overboard too.

I prefer realism. Makes for a more dramatic scene. Mac should have been to the station for questioning. Also, he handled evidence. Even before the CSI's and other like dramas, I knew that was a huge no-no. Even after the police were gone. Normally Mac wouldn't have had any access to scene or the car, which would have been towed at the conclusion of the forensics folks leaving.

But the show was aired in a "family viewing" (6-7 to 9 PM) timeslot, so it was also how much realism you could get away with (not much then...) I wasn't bothered by the inconsistencies then... now, I wished it could have been more realistic. But it would be bumped up to a 9 or 10 PM timeslot, and would have had an entirely different audience. And Mac might had have had a (I don't know...) grittier character...

I don't think it's as complicated as all that in "Flame's End". MacGyver went in for questioning- they just didn't bother to show it because it would slow the action down. And I can totally see MacGyver having access to the crime scene- yes, I know it's supposed to be left for only the police- but I think MacGyver's position with the government and DXS would have given him access. Or he may have just done it no matter what anyone said because of his personal involvement.
Overall, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I try to let the minor things go and just enjoy the overall story. (Which is probably why I can find enjoyment in much panned movies like "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" and "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier")

In the 80s and 90s the emphasis was on 2 types of stories. The one hour serial, either action/adventure or night time soap opera. The other type of show was the half hour situation comedy. The emphasis for all of these shows was the story.

The action/adventure genre featured a fast paced story, a likeable hero, nasty bad guys and possibly a commentary on the current socio-political scene.

The soap opera/drama genre featured an ongoing story of one or two families populated with nice guys, nasty guys, schemers, plotters and bed hoppers.

The situation comedy featured a family or group of friends, one of whom had some problem that the others tried to solve. The story usuallt featured some absurd situation that would never happen to people in the real world.

My point here is tht in all these types of stories, the story itself is the end goal. Telling a good one was the desired outcome. If the viewer of the story left the experience satisfied enough to tune in next week, then the writer of the story achieved his/her goal.

I think in our discussions, we have seen the episodes often enough that the things we would have overlooked the first or 5th viewing now stands out. In some shows, like MacGyver, which was based on science, the realism of crime scene processing would have enhanced the show. Adding details can slow a story, which is why the writers tended to paint some pictures with a large brush and broad strokes.

Many of us are watching MacGyver on video now and have seen these shows many many times. The initial emotional impact has been diluted somewhat because we have seen the show so often. The anticipation of what happens next as the story unfolds doesn't have the same edge of the seat anticiapation as it did the first time we saw the episode. With this loss of initial emotional impact, we become more aware of little details that we overlooked or dismissed the first time around.

Today's TV shows are a lot more sophisticated in their story telling in that they pay more attention to the details. Shows like CSI get some of it right, but still miss in the technical minutae. Anybody who has ever worked in an analytical laboratory with the types of instruments the CSI use, know that some of the things the writers show, are not possible with these instruments. Again, it has to do with the details. Police procedure is such a closed world for most people, that they are fascinated with any glimpse into this world.

In twenty years, the people who came of age during this era oc CSI and reality TV are going to be having these same discussions. What might they think of shows like MacGyver?

I know I'm a big nitpicker for realism, but a lot of it comes from my background. I spent 20 years working in analytical labs with very high tech equipment and processes. I still enjoy MacGyver. The show tells a good story. The character has a strong set of values and morals I can identify with and for the most part, the show is well written. I enjoyed Mac when it aired in the 80s and 90s. I enjoy Mac now and appreciate having something I can share with my son.

I guess it's that some shows can get away with it and others just... well, can't.

MacGyver holds a lot of magic for the viewers. It's actionpacked, it oozes sex appeal (to go with the words from the soundclip), it has humour, emotion. It has everything. It's mostly entertaining (with some educational stuff)

Where as shows like CSI they are meant to show reality. Of course they are made for entertainment as well, but on a totally different level, I think.

Pretty tough question. Even harder to explain it...

I agree with MacGyverGrrl, and with Sheepy,

Nowadays TV shows are far more complex and tend to add "realism" (and many other factors) by showing a great deal of detail in certain aspects, such as accurate police procedures, which I am not sure they are that "real" myself.

Even if the writers in MacGyver had been made aware of these inaccuracies re procedures, protocols or standards, it would probably have messed their story; also the 45 minutes must be hard to stick to. In my opinion, audiences have become more demanding about certain issues now, and certainly because of well-done shows such CSI we now search for a forensics specialist at any crime scene in any kind of show. 20 years have passed and TV has evolved, and so has the public! Which doesn't mean we can still enjoy watching MacGyver over and over and over and over and over...

You know, it's funny... I probably wouldn't watch the show if it was on today. I've tried to watch the wannabe MacGyver shows, but after a while it just doesn't keep my interest.

I think, for me it's wasn't the premise of the show, but how the actor who portrayed him. Would that show have survived the seven years if it would have any other actor in the lead role? Maybe, but I started watching MacGyver because I watched General Hospital, and I wanted to see how RDA was doing. Even though I really didn't like the first season as a whole, I kept watching because I knew it could be better. And eventually, it was.

But the reason I let my son watch is partly what you said, Sheepy (minus the sex appeal) It wasn't violent, he was an action hero who was an everyday guy, solved problems without resorting to gunplay... a good role model. And for me... I just got hooked!

You're not kidding...

...and over...

CSI and other cop shows like that are correct?

The running joke around here is to watch Cops to learn what not to do!

I keed, I keed!

I remember when CSI first aired there was both criticism and praise. Praise from real CSI that it had brought their job into the light and given some idea of what it really entails, but the criticism was that they showed DNA testing to be a quick process, when in reality it takes weeks to get results back, they had them in only minutes.

And of course the producers then had to explain, well we only have 1 hour to tell the story and we need the story to flow from one scene to the next, so you'll need to excuse us on this one.

Which was and is a valid point, but I think something else which might also have an affect on how we watch TV these days is that a lot of shows are now crime shows.. so we have simply come to expect to see crime scenes and interrogations etc because these scenarios now make up so much of what’s we watch, so going back to watch something like the car scene in Flames End.. it just doesn’t match what we’ve come to expect to see with this kind of scenario.. so it stands out as being so SO wrong!!.

Well MacGyver still beat out Jack Bauer and so on about being the favorite hero people would like to be rescued by. Which means Mac still rules.

Not sure how that comment fits this discussion?.. but yes your right anyway.

Yeah. might be slightly off topic, but MacGyver then and now. even now, with all the other characters and series out there, people still prefer Mac. which has to say something for the impact the show (and the character) has had on people even if the show is full of cliches and all sorts of things that shows nowadays don't use because it's not too realistic.

I encounter this problem when writing, too--mostly my own fiction, not so much my Mac stories. You want some realism, otherwise the story could come across as too fantastic and unbelievable, but entertainment is also important. A nice balance between realism and entertainment seems to be crucial in order to win an audience, and I think MacGyver pulled that off well. After all, some of his methods would actually work, but some story elements could be seen as far-fetched and absurd, which I think is why it worked so well--that balance between realism and entertainment. MacGyver helped us forget our daily struggles with action and that hint of fictionalization while at the same time educating us with some "real" science.

You have to be willing to suspend disbelief sometimes when dealing with any fiction, TV or otherwise. If you don't, and all you do is hunt for inconsistencies with "reality," you're not going to enjoy much of it.