Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
That's kind of how I felt about the latest Star Trek film (the one with the all new cast).
|
Wasn't a big fan of the new Trek film, either, but it was okay - mainly because at least it felt like a movie, whereas most of the previous films were more like drawn-out TV episodes.
Quote:
|
As someone else pointed out, Child never worked in law enforcement. Perhaps if he had that first-hand experience the story line would have been more believable; but it was still a heck of a lot of fun, IMO.
|
I think it's not as much about accuracy as it is about consistency and believability. (Is that even a word?) I'd be willing to believe that for some reason (over-eager boss, recent inspection, whatever) the police in a small town would be really well-trained. I'd also believe the opposite, since it's more in line with the image of small-town police I'd expect. The trouble starts when the author wants me to believe both concepts at the same time without explaining or even acknowledging the contradiction.
And most of my problems weren't really about bad research but rather about lazy writing and plotting. I may be able to ignore that in TV and movies to a certain extent, but for some reason I can't do it in books. Probably because a book requires me to invest some energy and imagination, whereas TV only requires me to sit still and watch. (*) If I need to bring something to the plate myself, I expect more from the other side, as well.
(*): There are, of course, many really intelligent, well-written and though-provoking TV shows out there, as well. It's just that I find it easier to tolerate bad writing on TV than in a book.