REVIEW OF CSI- CYBER TELEVISION SHOW
THE KUHNS REPORT
LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Evelyn, from Austin, Texas asked my opinion and review of the new CBS television show, "CSI-CYBER.
Patricia Arquette recently made news with her impressive speech at the Oscars when she made a plea for equal pay for women as she picked up her Oscar for best supporting actress in " "Boyhood." The CSI Cyber show is currently on Wednesday's at 10:00 P.M.It is about a group of criminal investigators that look into crimes relating to the world-wide web, the Internet. Personally, I believe Arquette took this part in the CSI series just to keep her face in the public eye, worldwide. I also think she is not suited for this series. Fact is, I don't think this Cyber series is suited for the CSI franchise either. The show is too muddled and has a tendency to overdo the special effects of computer geek stuff, it's also short on good story lines and dialogue.
The previous CSI spin-offs which created this franchise were great.They had very good story lines regarding various crimes and the actors played the parts well, but this Cyber show tries too hard. Maybe it's because they rely to heavily on the character the show is supposedly based on, Mary Aiken, a cyber psychologist, who also acts as consultant on the series and is supposedly involved in "every" aspect of the series. The field Ms. Aiken's, works in and around as a cyber-psychologist is trying to get across a weaved, tangled pattern of what she chooses to call cyberanalytics, which is only in its infancy and not clearly understood. Thus, because Ms. Aikens is a psychologist it appears she tries to combine computers and the Internet into still another field of psychology.
I submit that if a law enforcement agency wants to know the operational facets and workings of computers and how to deter hacking and crimes using computers and the Internet just call on the brainiac whiz kids that know the in's and outs of the computer and not any psychologist(s) who try to use questionable mental solutions to determine who is guilty or not guilty of a crime
I would suggest that a person is either a psychologist that can offer an opinion to law enforcement when they ask for assistance or the person is a sworn law enforcement officer/agent who carries weapons and is in the field shooting it out with the criminals.
Arquette's character is too serious, dry and sometimes silly. She is acting more like a mind reader coming across like a swami solving situations to close the case. She also roams around with a grim expression on her face but yet tries to portray a tough FBI agent. Really?, Also the show tries to make everything look technical with computer symbols and text flashing across the screen to much and the actors try to explain what technical stuff they are doing but in all, the show comes across very dry, boring and displaying some of the most childish dialogue and acting I've seen in a long time in a supposed crime show.
Charly Koontz, Hayley Kiyoko, Peter MacNicol, James Van Der Beek and Shad Moss the other actors appearing with Arquette look like a bunch of keystone cops and to top it off Arquette's character is supposed to solve the crime by looking at the suspects and proclaiming from high that she knows when a person is telling the truth and who's not guilty while some of the supposed computer techs go on and on about explaining to Arquette and others on the show how the computers work-- BORING! DULL! The story lines are "kid stuff." The show also has the cast babbling and babbling on about how they arrived at retrieving something from the Internet. WOW! Again BORING, DRY and DULL! The show drags on and one of the silly parts is where the entire team goes out with bullet proof vests and guns drawn,running through the streets, breaks down doors and arrests the criminal. Come On. Most law enforcement agencies have sworn trained officers and agents who conduct the arrests and take down the criminals. They don't have a mind reading psychic/psychologist leading a tactical team, running around the city screaming orders and arresting the culprits.
Evelyn, the CSI franchise is a good idea but they are reaching in this case with CSI-Cyber. Regarding this show I would think it's like the horse fell and broke it's leg. They should shoot the horse and put it out of it's misery. The CSI series should have stuck to the original format: Crime being committed; the crime scene techs piece together forensic evidence to assist and help the investigating officers solve the crime and if the investigators require something pertaining to Internet and computers the investigators should consult with a computer savvy person. Hundreds are available all over the country. That's the way investigating and solving crimes is usually done, It doesn't take a psychologist ( a none sworn police officer) who allegedly is in command of trained FBI agents(never happen) and a bunch of nerd techiees to gear up with weapons and armor and use firearms fighting crime.
The CSI producers should have continued the CSI series related to different cities like the original. Example - -the producers and franchise could have used. CSI- Atlanta; CSI- Dallas, and other cities carrying on the same theme as the first show. I believe the producers of the CSI franchise strayed too far afield in this case. It reminds me of the many movie sequels that are put out following the original. You know what I'm talking about --For example, The return of _____ or, ____, Part II, or, Sea Creature I, II and III. They never live up to their hype and usually disappoint.
Well Evelyn, you asked me for my opinion and review so to apply some sort of rating for CSI-Cyber, on a scale of A to F, I would rate this show a C-, and that's being generous.And, that's my opinion and review. You decide. Make your own decisions.
BRADLEY W, KUHNS, Ph.D. O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Sunday, March 1, 2015
I WILL NOT WATCH " INSIDE EDITION" ANYMORE
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's bad enough when there is too may commercials during television programs but when the network and/or television show begins to run commercials under the guise of a news segment, that takes the cake. Personally, I will not watch television show INSIDE EDITION, again. Let me explain.
A couple months ago while watching the show the host went into a segment praising a skin serum that was said to be a breakthrough. It was called Boots N o 7 Intense Serum.It was not presented during a commercial break. The host presented a TV clip as an interview with a spokesperson telling ladies not to use their own home remedies to enhance their skin but instead use the Boots No 7, Intense skin serum. I, probably like millions of other viewers though the interview segment was part of the reporting news program. A month or two late, on the same television show, Inside Edition, I saw the exact same TV segment and again, it was not during a commercial break. The host went right into the segment as if she were actually reporting an event like the rest of her show. Then, two days ago while watching INSIDE EDITION, -- Guess What? Same TV clip, word for word, and the same spokesperson promoting this skin serum, saying it's available at Target stores. At the end of the show I briefly caught mention at the bottom of the screen that so and so was the spokesperson for Boots, No 7 serum.
People, the networks and TV shows are already speeding up many shows so they make extra time for additional commercials, raking in millions of extra dollars in revenue. The shows are sped up by seconds and minutes. If one looks closely at many of the TV shows, sitcoms, etc., they will see how fast people move. They may hear garbled speech or erratic jumps and pauses in the film. Just speeding up a 30 minute sitcom by seconds those networks can realize additional commercial revenue but they fail to alert or tell the consumer what they are doing. Their thinking is the viewer will never notice the difference between an original show and one that has been sped up or cut.
My point,- with all the manipulation of the television programs already being done by the networks and shortchanging us viewers for the sake of revenue and additional commercial time we clearly don't need television networks using hidden, covert and/or embedded commercials in a show when they already have commercials every ten minutes or so during their half hour program.
Folks, if I want FAKE NEWS or INFORMATION I will watch the Jon Stewart show. He has never claimed his show was the real news . His show is very entertaining and a good play on the actual news occurring around the world and he does a bang up job in his presentations - -excellent, excellent show and we know what we are getting up front. But when a news/information show runs a so-called commercial that is disguised to look like a regular extension of a story -- WOW! That's unwarranted.
There was a time when you could watch television with NO commercials. How? Back in the early 1960's cable came into being. We consumes were told that the reason people were being charged for the cable service was because there were no commercials being played on cable. Even then people would pay for cable just to avoid the commercials. During that time a television commercial was run every 15 minutes and the commercial was only THREE minutes long. In an hour show the viewer saw only FOUR commercials. That was only TWELVE minutes of commercial time. Fast forward, present day - - now, there is no such thing as commercial free cable. So, we're still paying for cable but we have to endure commercials running at least FIVE minutes, sometimes, more after only TEN MINUTES of the television show. Folks, you get ten minutes of seeing the show and then are bombarded with five solid minutes of commercials, then ten minutes more of the show and another five solid minutes of commercials and this goes on throughout the half hour or hour show. I submit that if you count the commercials in that long, long five minutes you can count at least TEN commercials. And that's happening every ten minutes of viewing time. Now, the networks and television shows are squeezing out even more commercial time, ripping us consumers. If that's not enough we are seeing covert and hidden commercials between the actual commercials and I would suspect that the networks are being paid for these hidden segments. I say, when is enough, enough? - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
It's bad enough when there is too may commercials during television programs but when the network and/or television show begins to run commercials under the guise of a news segment, that takes the cake. Personally, I will not watch television show INSIDE EDITION, again. Let me explain.
A couple months ago while watching the show the host went into a segment praising a skin serum that was said to be a breakthrough. It was called Boots N o 7 Intense Serum.It was not presented during a commercial break. The host presented a TV clip as an interview with a spokesperson telling ladies not to use their own home remedies to enhance their skin but instead use the Boots No 7, Intense skin serum. I, probably like millions of other viewers though the interview segment was part of the reporting news program. A month or two late, on the same television show, Inside Edition, I saw the exact same TV segment and again, it was not during a commercial break. The host went right into the segment as if she were actually reporting an event like the rest of her show. Then, two days ago while watching INSIDE EDITION, -- Guess What? Same TV clip, word for word, and the same spokesperson promoting this skin serum, saying it's available at Target stores. At the end of the show I briefly caught mention at the bottom of the screen that so and so was the spokesperson for Boots, No 7 serum.
People, the networks and TV shows are already speeding up many shows so they make extra time for additional commercials, raking in millions of extra dollars in revenue. The shows are sped up by seconds and minutes. If one looks closely at many of the TV shows, sitcoms, etc., they will see how fast people move. They may hear garbled speech or erratic jumps and pauses in the film. Just speeding up a 30 minute sitcom by seconds those networks can realize additional commercial revenue but they fail to alert or tell the consumer what they are doing. Their thinking is the viewer will never notice the difference between an original show and one that has been sped up or cut.
My point,- with all the manipulation of the television programs already being done by the networks and shortchanging us viewers for the sake of revenue and additional commercial time we clearly don't need television networks using hidden, covert and/or embedded commercials in a show when they already have commercials every ten minutes or so during their half hour program.
Folks, if I want FAKE NEWS or INFORMATION I will watch the Jon Stewart show. He has never claimed his show was the real news . His show is very entertaining and a good play on the actual news occurring around the world and he does a bang up job in his presentations - -excellent, excellent show and we know what we are getting up front. But when a news/information show runs a so-called commercial that is disguised to look like a regular extension of a story -- WOW! That's unwarranted.
There was a time when you could watch television with NO commercials. How? Back in the early 1960's cable came into being. We consumes were told that the reason people were being charged for the cable service was because there were no commercials being played on cable. Even then people would pay for cable just to avoid the commercials. During that time a television commercial was run every 15 minutes and the commercial was only THREE minutes long. In an hour show the viewer saw only FOUR commercials. That was only TWELVE minutes of commercial time. Fast forward, present day - - now, there is no such thing as commercial free cable. So, we're still paying for cable but we have to endure commercials running at least FIVE minutes, sometimes, more after only TEN MINUTES of the television show. Folks, you get ten minutes of seeing the show and then are bombarded with five solid minutes of commercials, then ten minutes more of the show and another five solid minutes of commercials and this goes on throughout the half hour or hour show. I submit that if you count the commercials in that long, long five minutes you can count at least TEN commercials. And that's happening every ten minutes of viewing time. Now, the networks and television shows are squeezing out even more commercial time, ripping us consumers. If that's not enough we are seeing covert and hidden commercials between the actual commercials and I would suspect that the networks are being paid for these hidden segments. I say, when is enough, enough? - And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
____________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)