Lie To Me 01/21/09

Advertisements

I liked the show enough to be excited for future episodes, but I predicted almost every plot point. It took me a while to figure out exactly what was going on with the kid's plot, but it was obvious there was pregnancy, student/teacher relationships, and something with the principal. The senator one was too obvious.

In a way, I kind of like having a mystery that is easy to solve. This means that they don't have to show us a mystery that only the one expert can conveniently solve using clues that make no sense to us (ala The Da Vinci Code). On the other hand, I wish they'd make it a LITTLE harder.

I took it to be expository in nature - for the sake of the audience. They should have had the rookie around a lot more. I worry that they've written a flaw into the premise because the rookie can tell lies pretty well too. So now he can't explain it to the audience every scene since he has two experts. Still, it didn't bother me too much.

He was well aware of that trick, though. He even smiled when she used it. I am not sure that she's a "verbal" expert or anything like that.

 

+1 I enjoyed the show too.

 

Same. We chose live TV with commercials over this, just about 20 minutes in.

 

A few thoughts that I had about it last night:

1. Seems like a rip-off of the The Mentalist.
2. Glad to see Kelli Williams back.
3. AssHats at network ruined it by abnormal ending time.

If those freaking idiots want me to watch it, they'll make it end on the hour mark, and not 6 minutes afterwards. Total unacceptable stupidity!!!


But other than that, it was kind of interesting. Roth is always pretty good in most anything.

 

Advertisements

My tivo had 1:05.

Is the mentalist comment a joke referencing the psych/mentalist comparisons or are you serious?

 

I'll be looking at everyone's face from now on when I ask them a question... Good Show!

 

But remember, she hasn't had any training. She does it naturally and doesn't often know why she knows the person is lying. For that reason alone there can be a lot more explanation.

-Mike

 

Plus each of the three "human lie detectors" operate on a different basis...physiological, psychological, intuitive...giving plenty of opportunities for things to be explained back and forth.

But I think they will have to find their way, sooner rather than later, to the characters of the series taking front and center. Otherwise, the gimmick will almost certainly wear thin.

Kind of like Bones, which despite its flaws (Gormogon, anybody?) has done an excellent job of moving from centering on the flashy pseudo-forensics to centering on the characters.

 

Random musings about the show...

I was actually thinking having this device (human lie detectors) will force different types of plots(this is good) than say, CSI:Miami, where very frequently, it turns out to be the 2nd or 3rd person they interview, who is lying.

The pilot touched on a couple things that seem like they could be good devices for good stories:
- The investigator can be biased looking for one thing (did the kid kill someone) and the first time around miss another (arousal), so even with a human lie detector, they still have to ask the right questions.
- People can lie about/ be ashamed of something other than the primary thing they're investigating. I.e. lying about "I was home alone" could really be "I was at the crime scene" or "I was at a strip club."


Personally, I hope it focuses more on the investigation and not on the characters. I didn't like it when the CSIs evolved that way, and I don't like it in L&O episodes when they focus on the personalities rather than advancing the plot of the investigation or legal maneuvering.

Don't get me wrong, I do like character driven pieces too, but mostly for the comedic aspects of the characters and when the characters are distinct enough (West Wing, Desperate Housewives, Monk, Psych, House, ...). I don't know, maybe they'll evolve that way, but I just didn't see much personality in most of them, and most of their humor seems to be in catching someone in a minor lie, rather than in a personality interaction (I don't know if I'm making sense).

I'm also dreading the idea of an arch nemesis that seems to happen a lot with these shows with a "power." Like... in season 2, we'll find out that always-tell-the-truth-guy is really the best liar of all, and just knows how to cover and manipulate lives and he's really been running a sinister... counter-something or the other under their noses...

Wow, somewhere, I transitioned to rambling...

 

I missed the pilot, on both of my DVRs because of the dumb-ass scheduling.

I just streamed the show, and I really liked it. Granted, I like Kelli Williams and Tim Roth (for different reasons. ) I was really interested in the human tells. And the "tricks" to get people to reveal the truth.

I just hope there are enough tells, and tricks to sustain a long run of the this show. I fear that it will run it's course pretty quickly and turn into another procedural. Don't get me wrong, I watch L&O, the Mentalist, CSI, Bones, etc.. I like procedurals, but I like the premise of this one a LOT.

 

it hasn't gotten old for CSI to constantly explain every step that they do and why, right? With CSI, you'd never have fellow scientists explain as much stuff as they do to each other in real life conversations, but it benefits the viewer. Same here.

And i'm enjoying it, hoping that it'll help me in my poker game.

 

I enjoyed the show.

What did you have scheduled on the other tuner?

 

Well, I think certainly there is plenty of opportunity for tim roth's character to train the rookie and ask her WHY she knows he's lying. That would offer a lot of expository opportunities as well.

I think the show will figure it out. I just hope it doesn't degenerate into crap once the premise starts to wear out and the character plots become center.

 

Liked the first episode, will keep watching.

 

I wonder how long the premise can sustain itself. I would think there is a finite number of "tells". But then, I might be lying.

 

The show isn't just about the tells, but also the murder mystery aspect behind it. How many ways are there to process a crime scene? These shows have s formula to them.

CSI is to question many people, maybe make it look like one person but then new evidence shows up and then they have no leads, but then another key evidence shows up which spirals to the correct suspect who usually admits it all without a lawyer present.

House is to diagnose and misdiagnose and then last minute the bulb goes off and the person is saved (usually).

Mentalist is on tells again and then at the end trick the person and get them to confess.

 

Years ago I was completely oblivious to body language but now am a body language junkie so I do like the show. Understanding body language helps a lot in dating. I've done some interesting things like holding a girl's hand and feeling her begin to perspire if she liked me and I was getting her excited.

 

Well I'll admit that I have only seen one episode of CSI (the one directed by Quentin Tarantino). I am a rarity indeed, no doubt.

But I do understand the need for the exposition (as another poster stated) -- it's for the audience's sake.

 

Yawn. It felt like an acting class to me. We weren't watching real people get caught lying, we were watching actors pretend to lie. It was just too hard for me to get into the show, I just felt like I was watching actors act. And not always very well.

 

There was very little mystery to this show. Every single plot point/twist was painfully easy to figure out.

Wife & I felt pretty blah about this. We'll give it another week or so, but I don't see this one lasting (the SP or the show itself).

As for CSI, I've never seen a single episode of any of the eleventy-billion flavors. Nor a Law & Order. I think these types of shows just aren't my bag.