|
Post by Patcat on Oct 7, 2004 9:25:11 GMT -5
I only wish we had a category that would have Eames disposing of the Evil One.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Oct 7, 2004 9:52:51 GMT -5
over used worn out not worthy
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 7, 2004 11:41:16 GMT -5
I’m... surprised to see this poll on this board. I certainly expected discussion of this situation, but I’m surprised to see a poll, as though this were a valid thing the network is doing.
Criminal Intent is neither “Survivor” nor some soap opera. Balcer et al. do not deserve this kind of treatment by the network.
I’m not surprised by the general response over at the Universal board, though even there, there are exceptions. I expected to find this board up in arms.
Metella, as usual, when it cuts deep you and I are in agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 7, 2004 12:49:18 GMT -5
I vote to keep her. I don't want soap or cliff hangers, etc but I like the interaction between them.
I was wondering about your response to this poll, Observer. Then I took a look at the Uni board.
We need a poll on nbc polling the audience - or are the results a foregone conclusion?
I personally hate, yes, hate that the audience is influencing the writing. It's not dumbing down the show that I fear since most people who watch it welcome the more complicated storylines. It's the quick-fix mentality behind the whole thing. What's the point of discussing the characters if they don't stay true to what they might do, whether we like it or not?
I predict most people will vote to kill Nicole off rather than see where G vs N could go. I just hope he doesn't have sex with her!!!!
|
|
|
Post by MissAnnThropic on Oct 7, 2004 14:20:27 GMT -5
OMG, Sirenna, me too! If that happens, I'll vote Goren off the show.
Observer, I think that, if I'm interpreting her correctly, Trisha is reflecting the irony of the situation in the title of the poll. A tribal counsel a la Survivor, possibly the worst show ever created because of it's affects on the television genre. How sad for such an inspirational, creative, and intelligent team of writers to allow their work to be influenced by reality tv type sensationalism.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 7, 2004 16:05:09 GMT -5
Or perhaps the writers and producers have written themselves into a corner and want help out? As I've written before, I think the Evil One is a brilliant idea whose execution has left a lot to be desired. This way, at least the majority of the audience gets to be happy.
But I agree with the posters who feel this is a blatant ploy for ratings that I'd rather not see happan.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 7, 2004 17:27:06 GMT -5
Welcome MissAnnThropic (clever handle, can we call you Ann for short?) and thanks for the nod to my word play I actually don't mind that the writers of any show would want to appeal to their viewers desires, if they didn't, they'd lose viewers and we can't forget the commercial side of television. TV shows are produced for one reason: to sell stuff. Sure, there is artistic intent behind some of them, but that gets left in the wayside by cooperate intent. Corporate intent is to make money. To make money they need to sell air time. Without viewers, no one want to pay the network to air their commercials, and without advertising dollars, the networks won't keep buying a show. It makes sense to want to please your audience. Sadly, this is what the marketing department for L&O has come up with. But, I won't send hate mail yet. It may actually help the show pick up viewers, and that would help the show in the long run. The more successful the show is, the more pressure will be put on getting D'Onofrio to stay, or finding a replacement to take the seat next to Eames after next season. I don't know about you guys, but with the quality that this team of writers puts out so consistently, I would definitely keep tuning in with or without Goren.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 8, 2004 5:10:20 GMT -5
Or perhaps the writers and producers have written themselves into a corner and want help out? …<br> …But I agree with the posters who feel this is a blatant ploy for ratings that I'd rather not see happen. Patcat Patcat, I’m not trying to pick on you, it’s just that your post is the most obvious example of something a lot of people seem to be doing – assuming that this is something Balcer decided to do. I don’t for a moment believe that. Trisha, you said, “TV shows are produced for one reason: to sell stuff.” I couldn’t disagree more. The shows on network television are funded, and aired, by networks for one reason – to make money. But networks don’t create the shows – they just fund them. Many TV shows are written and produced as an expression of the creative drive of the people writing and producing them. But in order to have the funds to make the shows they want to make, the writer/producers have to play by the rules the networks set. Yes, this is a blatant ploy for ratings. But don’t blame it on Balcer. The writers and producers of Criminal Intent are some of the very best in the business. I’ve lost track of how many awards Balcer has won, but some of them are Edgars – awards for mystery writers given *by* mystery writers, awards with very high standards and stiff competition. Balcer has not written himself into a corner. And even if he had, why would he turn to the fans for help, when he has surrounded himself with high-quality, experienced, award-winning writers? This is something the network came up with – and it’s an ironically low blow that the most intelligent and well-written fictional show on television is being treated like it’s no different from Survivor.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Oct 8, 2004 5:17:00 GMT -5
…What's the point of discussing the characters if they don't stay true to what they might do, whether we like it or not? I absolutely agree. …I predict most people will vote to kill Nicole off rather than see where G vs N could go. I just hope he doesn't have sex with her!!!! Why on Earth would you worry about that? The only way Nicole is going to get Goren to have sex with her is if she gets a *whole lot* of Rohypnol into him.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 8, 2004 7:03:08 GMT -5
Observer, I never once said or thought that Balcer and other writers had anything to do with this. I implied that the marketing department is to blame, but that is just an assumption. This could very well be the idea of Balcer or one of his team. I still vote for the marketing idiots, though.
To creative control ... NBC isn't just the network that airs the show. They also own it now. I'm not discounting Dick Wolf's opinion in this, because he didn't sell his share of the show, too. So, somewhere along the line he must have agreed to do this, too. But a lot of the power is now in NBC's hands, and if this is the way they want to do things, they will. I hope they don't forget all the other shows they ran into the ground while they meddle with CI, and realize that there are reality shows that run against CI on Sunday's and Saturday nights, and they LOSE in ratings. HINT HINT.
Also, unless I'm mistaken, none of us know Rene Balcer personally, so lets not put words in his mouth. He has stated in the past that he *does* read internet message boards about his show, and there has been A LOT of talk about Nicole, and not a lot of it has been positive. I, myself, have pleaded with him and the other writers many times to get rid of her.
While I understand your problem with this type of ploy, and I hope it doesn't continue, I'm interested in how most of the posters here will vote.
Do you want me to change the poll to add a choice for "I want the writers to write story, and f*ck it if most of the viewers don't like it."
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Oct 8, 2004 7:08:07 GMT -5
um; I really do think that any TV show that gets to the pilot point is in it for the money. No one would fund the original idea if they didnt' think it would make money - oh sure, MAYBE a few of the shows are created for expression of art/idea ..... but again, it would never get pass the paper script if someone didn't think it would bring in some $$$
I have no clue what is going on the other board or what you guys are refering to .... anyone wanna clue me in? Whose polling who and who is happy about it?
|
|
nick5oh
Silver Shield Investigator
Posts: 53
|
Post by nick5oh on Oct 8, 2004 9:20:05 GMT -5
let me preface this by saying that Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes in 1893. But faced with protests from his readers, he brought back Holmes a few years later.
Gauguin kept painting his Tahitian women to satisfy the demand from his Paris dealer.
And wasn't "Edwin Drood" (sp.?) was an audience participation musical?
Michelangelo was very conscious of pleasing his patrons, he was so good at it he died with an estate worth over $100 million (in today's dollars).
In short, artists/writers/musicians/creators have always been sensitive to the market place. They want to pay the rent as much as the rest of us.
As for this double ending: I'd be willing to bet that both versions have creative integrity, and either one will present Goren with worthy challenges and consequences he'll have to live with, all of them consistent with the vision Balcer et al. have for the show. I doubt they'd saddle themselves with an outcome that would make them gag.
I'd also be willing to bet Balcer had something to do with the initial idea. I doubt it started out as a marketing/ratings ploy, but most likely grew out of the writing process: Given two perfectly defensible and equally valid resolutions to the Wallace storyline, either one of which can take your main character into interesting territory, which path do you take? Since the fans are so invested in the story line, maybe it's as a tribute to the fans that Balcer et al. are leaving it up to them.
It's also an interesting media experiment, a kind of performance art on a national scale.
The creative process is often one of solving problems and meeting challenges -- leaving the fate of Goren's nemesis in the hands of the viewers could be a way for the writers to give themselves a challenge.
Anyway, I'm going to wait and see and gauge my emotional response to both endings. Maybe those of us who want to kill off Nicole might have a different reaction once we're faced with the reality of it...who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Oct 8, 2004 9:48:10 GMT -5
Observer--No sense of being picked on--indeed, you're being quite gracious about it, and I think you're right. I was being too dismissive of the writers and producers.
Nick50h(my apologies for getting your name just a little wrong)--I think you may have something as well. I did read that the LOCI creative staff claimed they were going to do something that had never been done before on television. Perhaps this is it.
As I've thought more about it, the more my feelings are mixed. I think my initial reaction may have been more of a knee-jerk happiness at resolving the Evil One's plot line. At any rate, I'm interested in how it plays out.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by malocchio on Oct 8, 2004 11:11:31 GMT -5
Observer2 wrote:
"Trisha, you said, “TV shows are produced for one reason: to sell stuff.”
I couldn’t disagree more."
But I remember reading this in the Orlando Sentinel in May and found it on their website:
"The Peacock Network announced its fall schedule Monday and opened the week when broadcasters unveil their prime-time lineups to advertisers"
What I took from the article is that NBC and all the networks first announce their new fall lineups to an audience of advertisers. Not to the press and not to the public. So, I think that says something about who the networks want to please first.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Oct 8, 2004 12:10:57 GMT -5
In defense of Observer's disagreement, she was aiming at the reasons the show was produced in the creative sense, i.e., why the writer created the character and who the character is to him/her and arguing that the viewer should not have any involvement in this process.
But your inference, malacchio (and Metella's), to my using the word "produced" is what I truly meant by it. The actual production of a show, lights camera, action! are all fueled by the intention of making money.
And Nick5oh has brought up and equally valid part of the same argument nicely. Unless an artist has unlimited funds, they need to be able to sell their work to pay the rent. If they don't create something people want, they're dead in the water.
|
|