I'm really annoyed by dummies who take the last shred of credibility out of their roles. I only wonder who did the research? These examples would never be allowed to work in their posts in real life. In comparison, I have taken few pics from a Canadian show that does it as it should be done, has done its background work and receives kudos for other merits as well.
THE GUILTY EXAMPLES
CSI: Miami, dr. Alexx Woods
I always wonder how many hairs she has left in multiple crime scenes. If she wanted to murder somebody it would be easy because nobody would pay any attention to those hairs in pillows, floors... etc. The whole presence is otherwise incredible as well.
NCIS, Abby
Pic tells everything. Yes, she dresses up that way for work. I have no idea why I watch this crap ..
HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE
More convincing, eh?
Notice the dude in the second picture of the Canadian show. He's leaning on the car with NO GLOVES!!! I call that: tampering the evidence.
ReplyDeleteAnd after watching Murder, I have noticed that there are several other mistakes that those hip TV shows do, like not using the primary light source which would make it so much easier to search the crime scene. They just use flashlights because it looks more cool and more like the X-Files.
"He's leaning on the car with NO GLOVES!!!"
ReplyDeleteX)
Yes, but he is a detective. And most likely the 'investigator guy' (can't find the name or title from the imdb, which is irritating and also a bit strange -I think we have another Walter Harriman...) has already processed the window pane (correct word? can't bother to check).
What comes to flashlights I am beginning to think that there might be something to it. Anyways, I have to do research on that on some day (planning to do it long time) & will get back on that. But otherwise ditto (< I hate that word and still use it).