What I don't like about this series - Mayday (2003) Discussion

[–] udo_koch 15 years ago

Umm..the point of the series is to show the cause, you know, WHY it happened not so much HOW it happened.

reply

[–] Bobman84 15 years ago

Lol, exactly.

Excellent series!

reply

[–] lysergic-acid 15 years ago

What, do you mean you don't want them to spoil the fact that the plane crashes?

This isn't a TV drama. It's a documentary program. And all the episodes I've seen preserve a sense of mystery up to the end, as it's presented in a similar format to a detective novel. Even in a murder-mystery novel, you know going into the book that someone is going to be killed. And in most cases, the story starts with a description of the crime or crime scene--does that mean you no longer need to read the book?

As the posters above mentioned, the mystery is how the accident happens, not whether it happens. Footage of the crash or wreckage of the plane are often the launching points of crash investigations. It doesn't reveal the reasons behind the accident. Instead, it usually deepens the mystery around the incident. There's no way for them to present the program in a detective story fashion without giving a general description of the accident at the beginning of the show--setting up the mystery that needs to be solve.

reply

[–] Graggoz 9 years ago

Not sure if we have seen the same episodes (I have seen them all at least twice) and there are plenty of episode where no crash actually occur (or no crash occur with the first plane, but to other planes with similar problems later), instead just emergencies that was handled good enough that noone was injured, let alone killed.

Me, and apparently many others, think that one of the most interesting things about this show is to try and put yourself into the crews position and reason what could be the cause of the problem and potential fixes. This is why the first minute of an episode can feel like an unnecessary spoiler.

In many of the episode over a third of the length have progressed before the actual crash (if there is one) occurs. This seems like a good balance. Just having the episode start with a crash site would be incredibly stupid as that is usually not even the case in the real world where there usually (some few exceptions) are quite a bit of hints or outright explanations what type of problem that caused the crash.

reply

[–] lysergic-acid 15 years ago

You're still missing the point. It's not a thriller--which would be a bit distasteful for a documentary on a real tragedy (to get cheap thrills from the deaths of hundreds of people). It's a mystery. But the mystery isn't whether there are survivors or if the plane crashes.

And unless you're really dense, it's pretty obvious long before the dramatized crash whether there will be survivors or not (hint: if none of the people interviewed during the dramatization are passengers, then there were no survivors).

I personally watch the program to understand the investigative process and to see the ingenious ways accident investigators solve crashes, as well as to understand why crashes happen and how they are prevented. I don't watch Mayday for the thrill of seeing people in life-or-death situations or for the adrenaline rush of wondering if the people on the plane are all going to die or not. That's like rubber-necking at a car accident on the freeway. If you want to get your kicks that way, then go watch a cock fight or NASCAR.

reply

[–] Brainwave1964 14 years ago

Dork, it's a documentary not an entertainment thriller-in-the-sky. Grow up!

reply

[–] stuartcork7 14 years ago

I am quite concerned that people like 'funfonex' and 'nermo' would watch these programmes for the 'thrill' of seeing people panic and die!

As others have said, this is a documentary about the investigation into air accidents. There are plenty of Hollywood action/thriller films out there if you want to get your kicks out of death and disaster.

The purpose of these programmes is to educate about how air safety improves over time. The engineering and forensic study of aircraft that have been put through tolerances that they were not designed to handle.

There is a very good reason that these are shown on documentary channels.

"I'm not really me. Thats me there- that pile of albino mouse droppings!"

reply

[–] nermo 14 years ago

Way to put words in peoples mouth. At the risk of responding to not so subtle trolling... I often cry during these episodes, that's what you call getting a "kick a out of disaster"?

Most disaster thrillers are based on some actual event, often of course exaggerated for, not cheap thrill, but in order to lure advertising dollar. If there's thrill from disasters it's purely the thrill of dollars raining into bank accounts at hollywood, since often a movie/infotainment/etc follows a disaster. If these shows were not made for entertainment, there wouldn't be so much focus on dramatization, special effects and such. I've watched shows detailing disasters prior to this show and those shows were usually more "dry", just interviews and thats that. The way the this show is constructed acts out not like the usual informative documentaries on tv, there's a lot of focus on entertainment value here.

The negative points I made in the op apply despite some remarks to contrary earlier: I do not read episode titles or descriptions, only the beginning spoils what's going to happen and it's a huge let down since I'm flight enthuasist I've been flying simulators since 80's, albeit on PC rather than real training simulator, so when I watch the situation on the show I want in my mind to help save the plane and think of the options. The shows don't often end the same way and there are many episodes where everyone lives. Whatever the marketing stated purpose of the show is doesn't remove from the fact of what it really is - stories about disasters with heavy focus using methods from entertainment to hook the viewer. If they only wanted viewers to feel sorry/compassionate they would not use methods of drama that create thrill and such.

ps. thrill doesn't necessarily mean "pleasure" as some of the definitions say. I know people who are incapable of getting thrill and excitement through tv/computers so understandably those people would be likely to feel very uneasy watching this show and might be shocked that some people actually enjoy watching this. (It's a bit like some people get shocked when they see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCOOwZNLqzc - I get excited and want to go do it. Too bad it's not exactly cheap to train for in order to perform safely)

reply

[–] haynes-2 14 years ago

I hate to tell you that in any WW2 movie the nazis get beat in the end.

reply

[–] lysergic-acid 14 years ago

Dude, you should have put up spoiler warnings. Now I don't need to read my history books or take my world history class.

reply

[–] Brainwave1964 9 years ago

Lol!

reply

[–] astacusastacus 14 years ago

Is it possible to spoil that the aircraft crashes in a program called "Air Crash Investigation"?

reply

[–] Northerner335 13 years ago

The OP is taking a lot of heat here, but let me say - as a HUGE fan of this program - that I often try to skip the intro section of each show. People are being snarky here, asking how can you spoil something called "Air Crash Investigation" (although it is not called that in Canada), but the planes do not always crash! What I mean is that sometimes they manage to get on the ground without the loss of life of everyone on board. When the program starts, we don't know whether it will have that kind of outcome, or rather, "really" crash and kill everyone. The best part of the show, for me, is putting myself in the position of the crew and attempting to figure out what is going on and how I would respond. Knowing the ultimate result (for example, the plane crashes into a mountain) takes a bit of the intrigue out of it. I like beginning with a completely clean slate. Still love the show, though.

reply

[–] amitjusc 13 years ago

I agree with the OP and Northerner335. I also skip the intros every time for these same exact reasons. This is a fantastic show that can certainly cause emotional reactions. I have gotten teary-eyed as well watching some eps. My reaction would be far more muted if I watched the intro, which is why I stopped doing so. Don't judge other people for the choices in how they want to digest this infotainment.

reply

[–] nomad472002 13 years ago

What I dislike most about this series is:

The camera work. Some episodes are great to listen to, but too difficult to watch, what with the shakey cam done to excess, blurry, double images, and so on.

The repetition. They seem to repeat things more than ought to be necessary.

The use of the metric system in aviation. Speeds are measured in knots, altitudes in feet.

The screaming sappengers. Sounds like the same canned screaming every time.

Nomad

reply

[–] Brainwave1964 9 years ago

amitjusc: only low-literate people write/say "same exact". The grammatically-correct order of these words is "exact same".

reply

[–] Cashflow808 13 years ago

I think that using English for all conversations by the actors/actresses, regardless of the original language used in reality, sometimes defeats the purpose of some of the episodes, especially ones where language problems/misunderstandings were a major theme (e.g. Avianca flight 52, 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision). In those cases, I would have preferred that the reenactments show the conversation in the original language, with English subtitles showing the translation.

I hope that if the producers make an episode of the 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision, they will let the actors speak Serbo-Croatian for the last conversation between the Inex-Adria crew and the Zagreb controller, in order to emphasize the fact that the use of a language other than English prevented the British crew from understanding the looming danger for them.

reply

[–] makeupbyomar 12 years ago

They've done (I believe) two episodes in S12 that have the actor pilots speak a foreign language to the ATC to get across the language barrier issues that have contributed to crashes.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 11 years ago

I dislike that some stories are obviously dragged out - so boring, some stories are obvious about what happened but it takes them ages to get to that point (like the lack of fuel when the engines fail one by one in mid-air) and I dislike that some points, facts and even scenes get repeated, as if the watcher is dumb and forgot what was said 5 minutes ago.

The spoilers before the episode start can be annoying too, but most of the time they don't throw the entire results at you. So, it's okay.

I'm amazed by the realistic airplane animations <3 and the acting in the cockpit.

That things must be completely made up when all passengers die is obvious but rarely mentioned. So for dramatization they make things up. That's a bit uncool.

I totally like when they show what was learnt from the accident and what things got changed and became standards and just how much effort, time and money is put in those investigations. Even when it takes 3 years to find a flight data recorder in the ocean, or 10 years to solve an accident.

A thing I've learnt: don't fly with Chinese or Russian airlines. Esp. not Chinese. ;)

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

What's so terribly wrong with Chinese or Russian airlines? Air China has only had one accident during its 26 years of existence and although Taiwanese China Airlines has had a relatively troubled history, it's been 12 years since its previous crash. And Aeroflot has also had a rather stellar track record eversince the break-up of USSR (of course, this pertains to the actual flag carrier and not necessarily its various domestic branches/subsidiaries... same with Chinese smaller/domestic carriers, I suppose).

Some episodes do use an awful lot of padding, spending a lot of time obsessing over issues that are really non-issues and going onto barely relevant tangents. For instance, in the episode concerning the Singapore Airlines crash in 2000, nearly 10 minutes are spent on figuring out on which runway did the accident occur, when in reality it was, of course, immediately obvious (they even engage in ridiculous play-acting, having an involved expert speculate whether or not the stormy winds could have blown some loose construction site debris onto the parallel runway 5 L when, in fact, all of the debris as well as the wreckage was on the closed runway 5 R. Additionally, they also examine radar returns and CVR recordings in order to establish what's clear from the get-go). Guess there just isn't enough story to all accidents, so they have to resort to tactics like this.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] nermo 9 years ago

I would say that the series format changed a bit during the years. Now there's more time spent on dramatization of the investigation process where in the first couple seasons you had interviews explaining things. I'd like to see more interviews but I have a feeling that the producers found that doing dramatization is actually cheaper than finding people involved to interview (incl translators for foreign languages) all over the world if the accidents are based all over the world.

If you don't believe this, compare latest seasons to the first few seasons, there is a dramatic difference.

reply

[–] menotherapy 9 years ago

I would say that the series format changed a bit during the years. Now there's more time spent on dramatization of the investigation process where in the first couple seasons you had interviews explaining things. I'd like to see more interviews but I have a feeling that the producers found that doing dramatization is actually cheaper than finding people involved to interview (incl translators for foreign languages) all over the world if the accidents are based all over the world.

If you don't believe this, compare latest seasons to the first few seasons, there is a dramatic difference.

What I have noticed in the first two or three seasons is how show has NOW become much, much more focused on the investigation rather than the actual crash (reenactments, interviews, etc).

I think there's a few episodes where it's about 10 minutes in and the plane has crashed and the rest of the time is done explaining why that happened.

In the earlier seasons, this wasn't the case.

reply