Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

N3aR · 30-01-12, 03:05 PM

I'm on the fence about this one but, anyone else feel the detectives are more like magicians? You watch a show and up until the final minute, you have little to no clue as to who might have done it and then, magically, the detective pulls out the WHOLE enchillada. I'm not even kidding right now. It is not fair. I remember watching a couple of mysteries in which, if you, the watcher/audience paid enough attention, you could find out who the murderer is. Even before the detective can. Seriously peoples, I feel cheated when i watch mysteries these days. They always know ten times more than you do and you always end up blindly guessing who the murderer is (the most innocent looking one is usually the culprit). Its boring because we never actually get to find the culprit WITH the detective. We rather just watch as they showcase about three to four people with decent level of suspicion placed upon them and at the end, either a fifth guy pops outta nowhere or miraculous evidence appears that we never knew about until the end.

I personally don't enjoy this but it would be nice to know whether people find it a good thing.

Is it?

Antigone · 30-01-12, 03:12 PM

I like detective/mystery shows but they have their flaws, yeah.

It's primarily because we're the observers. We are more likely to figure it out faster because the viewer almost always gets more info somehow. More reason to suspect someone. Or just flat out gut instinct.

I watch those shows mostly because they're fun, I enjoy them, but I don't bother to try to work out the problem... otherwise I'd either figure it out because it's obvious or they'd do a total ass-pull.

My major issue is the "convenient information knowing" they all seem to have. Like from their past, someone they used to know, their parents, who/whatever were involved in something that somehow relates to the case.
Like if it involved boats, one of them will have probably gone boating a lot as a child and as a result know everything about boats and that'll practically break the case.

Meh, you see it a lot in CSI mostly.

But I enjoy watching people work out the mystery. Like, Colombo for example. You almost always knew who did it from the get-go... because you saw them do it. But the fun was in watching Colombo getting close to the killer, gathering clues, getting information, going on his suspicious, being awesome, and working it all out - finding the lies and dissecting them. It was awesome. Plus the episodes were longer (like an hour and almost a half) so you got to see more.
Even though you always knew who did it, the fun was in watching Colombo pick up on everything, spotting things that just wasn't right. The fun was in how he figured it out even though you already knew.

Peyton Manning · 30-01-12, 03:12 PM

No, it'd be epic if the detective was do-er of what ever crime, and his assistant or station found out.

N3aR · 30-01-12, 04:18 PM

I totally agree, i'll investigate columbo later (see what i did there).

Ephemeral · 30-01-12, 05:52 PM

Personally, I prefer long narrative forms of mysteries. I find short narratives (30 - 60 Mins) don't lend themselves to the correct pace and the narrative obscurity that Longer forms can utilize. Shorter narratives need to reveal information to the viewer much more rapidly and as a result, they become more obvious to an observer. Longer forms allow a more gradual release of information which obscures the observers Then, there's the fact that Visual narratives promise the viewer a payoff at the end, usually set by the beginning shots of the piece. If a particular piece is too obscure in it's story telling, the modern viewer probably won't respond well because he/she doesn't "Get it" or they didn't "figure it out".