That thing we are discussing about 5x01

[thelana.livejournal.com]

The dialog from the scene:
F: Do you want to see my scars? What do you think? Do you like them? Yours are gonna look just the same
H: My team
F: Your team, your team didn't catch me untill I wanted them to. You're not in charge so don't be foolish. Now try to relax. Your body will go numb (knife goes in) and it goes in so much easier if you relax. The hard part is not passing out from the pain. (Foyet pulls the knife our slowly) Now I understand that profilers think that stabbing is a substitution for the act of sex, that if somebody is impotent, they'll use a knife instead. Is that what you think agent Hotchner? Maybe this will change the way you profile. (knife goes in)

So what do you think did the scene mean?

[Poll #1462291]

Comments

[dragonladyk.livejournal.com]

I understand that a procedural's "crime of the week" setup involves sacrificing major character subplots [...] So if CM is thinking about playing it straight to preserve the vast majority of their squickable (non-fannish) viewers, then I'd rather they not open a controversial issue and then ignore it or make it magically go away.

It's not the "crime of the week" setup that's the problem. It's the bottom line that's the issue.

A procedural (which focuses on the work) and a drama (which focuses on the character's personal lives) attract very different audiences. Sometimes shows can jump demographics and stay popular. Often, though, when a show tries to jump demographics it finds that the audience it's aiming for won't try it and the audience it had now doesn't want it, and the show bombs out. When shows bomb networks lose money and network execs know that. They also know that if a show gets too controversial or edgy, companies won't want their commercials on during the show for fear that the Moral Guardians will boycott them or that people will associate their product with controversy and edge. That lowers ad impressions for the show and costs the network money. Networks care about making money more than anything.

All of which I'm certain you know, of course.

That being said, I think the CM PTBs deserves a break because no matter how thoughtful and realistic they wish to be, they have to answer to execs who see only the bottom line -- and we the audience have no way of knowing how much of what we see is the writers or the network. All it takes is one exec to say "no one would ever take the commander seriously if you go on and on about his abused childhood" (no matter how wrong that may be) and there goes that plotline. In the case of male rape, touch-and-go implication literally may be the best handling of the situation that is within the writing staff's power.

Foyet's scene is getting people thinking and talking about male rape which, IMO, is at least a step in the right direction.

DragonLady

[thelana.livejournal.com]

I think the thing about procedurals is that they are designed so people can start watching at any stand alone episode and still enjoy it even if they don't know the backgrounds of any of the characters. They are also designed to work well in reruns, again, being written in a way that people can jump in at any time. Because of this, characters have to be pretty recognizable, but also pretty stagnant.

I do think that CM is still better than most so far. For example Bones gives a much larger portion to the personal lives of the characters but the fans also complain about there being constant character continuity problems, particularly in the form of characters being "reset", either because they need them to be quirky and odd again even though technically, in canon, the character should have moved beyond that already or because a major event that should have affected the characters longterm is quickly forgotten. So more focus on the personal apparently is no insurance against poor character continuity it seems.