A Killer Choice

Like most people, I enjoy your average hour-long TV mystery. They are a fantastic way to kill a rainy Saturday or pretty much any day when there is nothing better to watch. The only thing you have to watch out for is not getting too involved or suddenly your entire day is gone. People's love of these kinds of shows are exactly why "CSI", "Law & Order" and "NCIS" have been on the air for a combined total of about 30 years and each franchise has spawned numerous spin-offs. The only problem with a lot of these shows is how predictable they are. I'm not just talking about the formula of "find body, go after wrong person, get shocking evidence, arrest correct person, justice gets served." The writers of these shows have to crank out a large number of episodes a season and there are only so many ways to vary a show like that, so a bit of a routine is expected. What I don't like is that as who-dun-its these shows are supposed to keep you guessing who the murderer is until the very end of the hour, but the murderer is always the special guest star. Honestly, the second you recognize an actor from another show you can be 95% certain they will end the episode in handcuffs. Knowing how the show will end certainly makes them a little easier to tune away from. That is why I appreciate how a few shows have at least attempted to change this.

A couple times in the last few months I have seen a few shows offering a sort of "choose your own adventure"-type episode, in which they flooded the episode with more suspects than usual, then filmed several endings in which different people were guilty and viewers were allowed to text in their vote as the show went on to let the producers know who they thought the killer was. The outcome with the most votes would be aired, but don't worry if they ending you wanted didn't win, because they would all be available online. Yes, I am aware this is a blatant rip off of the classic movie, "Clue". But since I love that movie as well as choose your own adventure books as a kid I would prefer to think of it as more of an homage. For people like me who claim these kinds of shows are too predictable it was a chance for us to have our voices be heard, vote for the random actor to get the big reveal at then end and finally see a show where the only recognizable star wasn't the obvious choice. (Sadly, I didn't watch a couple of the shows but I'm willing to bet the big guest star still ended up being the killer just because TV watchers are trained for that to be the conclusion.) It's pretty much the only election you don't want to win.

Of course, this only works if you believe the voting was being calculated live and the writers didn't simply flip a coin before the episode aired, which is something I find myself being a little skeptical about. I know editing has come a long way and plugging the viewers choice should be a relatively straightforward process, but there are still plenty of things which could go wrong and this was (allegedly) live TV we were talking about. I have a hard time believing uptight studio executives would be willing to risk an editing snafu in front of a prime-time audience. Just because they shot three endings doesn't mean they ever intended to air the other two. Plus, the reason the guest star always ends up being the killer is because they cost the most to get on the show and producers want to get the most bang for their buck. It certainly doesn't make sense to pay someone tens of thousands of dollars to get them on the show for a single episode and then use them in 5 scenes. All that leads me to have some doubts and makes me think the 'vote for the ending' idea is just a marketing ploy to up ratings, because as far as I know they didn't plan to release voting results once the show was over and let you know just how close it really was.

Still, I can't blame producers for trying to get fans involved because if shows like "American Idol" have taught us anything in the last couple of years it is that people love voting about things on television. Plus, I'm always saying how flawed the ratings system is for television because it takes a small number of people and then uses their viewing habits to decide what goes on television for a large number of people. Asking the people who are watching to text in seems like a better measurement tool. Sure, not every viewer who watched cast a vote and I'm sure there were more than a few viewers who voted numerous times but I would be willing to bet it was a far more accurate viewing data than what the Nielsen ratings box gives you. Not to mention there are plenty of people who love these shows but not at the time they originally air. I've seen many Law & Order marathons, but couldn't tell you what day the show originally airs on network television. That can't be good for business. So if nothing else this was a far more original way to attempt to boost ratings for a one-hour mystery, which usually tries to draw people in by making scripts out of the most recent headlines or having an even bigger guest star (who will definitely turn out to be the murderer). If we didn't want the show to end that way we have no one to blame but ourselves.