|
|
Post by pakman on Apr 13, 2021 14:09:06 GMT -5
I think one of the biggest issues fans of AMW have with the new series is that it's not paced very well, with some fugitives getting more attention than others for reasons that aren't very clear. A prime example would be Josephine Overaker getting two segments while Frederick Arias only got one. This got me thinking; if we, the fans, were in charge, how would we arrange the show?
Here's what I would do:
Segment 1 - Recent fugitive case (anytime from 2017-2021), Part 1; Caught on Camera (unknown suspect)
Segment 2 - Recent fugitive case (anytime from 2017-2021), Part 2; Caught on Camera (known suspect)
Segment 3 - Fugitive case (any range, but preferably from the last 10 years or so); Caught on Camera (unknown suspect)
Segment 4 - AMW Cold Case (a fugitive from the archives who is still wanted; Godwin, Chism, Eubanks - all could go here); Caught on Camera (known suspect)
Segment 5 - Fugitive case (any range, but preferably from the last 10 years or so); Caught on Camera (unknown suspect)
Segment 6 - Missing Child/Adult Alert; fugitive recap
This way, you get a nice amount of cases (four fugitives, five caught on camera cases, and a missing persons case) and they've got a nice balance to them. By giving the recent case more attention, it's more likely someone will recognize a quirk. I'm glad they profile cases like Larry Chism, but did he really need two segments? Especially when they hyped up "new" information that's been known to authorities, and the public, for 30 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Apr 13, 2021 14:18:10 GMT -5
This is going to sound really lazy of me but your layout is f-ing perfect as far as I'm concerned lol. The only things I would be change is to be fair since AMW is a court of last for all types of victims is every other week sacrifice a fugitive segment for an unsolved with no known suspect or missing segment or maybe at least the caught on camera segments unless particularly violent or with a fugitive attached don't need to be a weekly thing, and we can show more missing children instead.
Granted considering AMW's ratings this may be a moot point, but I guess a good layout for us to discuss if anyone ever wants to do a similar show.
|
|
|
|
Post by тσρтєиhυитєя on Apr 13, 2021 15:16:11 GMT -5
I like that format too, that’s how I envision the ideal AMW show to be set up, I feel that on 2.0 Elizabeth Vargas wastes time talking to other investigators talking about every case when in reality she could discuss it with the viewers and show the avatar it takes about 20-30 seconds at best.... nothing against the investigators on the show who have given their 2 cents or I’m not saying it’s not good, I do like that aspect, but you lose time doing that which is the reason we’re down to 3 fugitive segments, avoid all that we could have 5 fugitive segments and 1 missing person segment.
Also the crime alerts should still cover armed violent crimes caught on camera, as well as do sorta what was done on AMW 1.0 and IP, do a 15 seconds of shame type segment and show a couple fugitives that won’t be aired in the near future and they can call the segment a “BOLO” or “Fugitive Alert”, instead of taking the name from In Pursuit. I’d do the same for missing persons and do a “Missing Person Alert”.
|
|
|
|
Post by pakman on Apr 13, 2021 20:33:31 GMT -5
The script is way too wordy. I think that's a major problem I have with it. I HATE it when Elizabeth says, "If you saw this fugitive in October of 1979," or something like that. Why does it matter if we saw them then? I want to know where they are now! Unless they told you back then where they were going, a tip like that is likely to not really matter in the long run. I'm an editor and writer by profession and I think that is probably my biggest gripe with the show. It doesn't need to be so wordy. I've even caught times where an extra word was added in, and my editor brain goes, "You don't need that word."
|
|
|
|
Post by тσρтєиhυитєя on Apr 13, 2021 21:54:31 GMT -5
The script is way too wordy. I think that's a major problem I have with it. I HATE it when Elizabeth says, "If you saw this fugitive in October of 1979," or something like that. Why does it matter if we saw them then? I want to know where they are now! Unless they told you back then where they were going, a tip like that is likely to not really matter in the long run. I'm an editor and writer by profession and I think that is probably my biggest gripe with the show. It doesn't need to be so wordy. I've even caught times where an extra word was added in, and my editor brain goes, "You don't need that word." You touched on a great point Pakman, and she does that because the investigators working the cases mostly if not entirely narrate the segments instead of Elizabeth Vargas doing it, so it explains why she always uses that sentence, this is one of my criticism of Vargas, it was nice when John Walsh back in the day narrated the segments himself and they turned to investigators to narrate part of the stories too, but it was mainly John Walsh doing the talking on AMW 1.0, even In Pursuit has improved that from how The Hunt was when they only showed him talking for 2 or 3 cutscenes and ending of the segments in a show that’s 48 minutes long give or take. I’m not saying Elizabeth Vargas did a bad job, I just wanted her to narrate the segments, people would’ve gotten more of a feel for her as a host and see her presenter skills more and have law enforcement still narrate the episodes too. However we only got a feel for Elizabeth Vargas as a host when it came to that sentence, her talking with the 2 investigators who offered their 2 cents and the avatar part. It was basically AMW’s Format combined with The Hunt’s narration style. |
|
|
|
Post by Scumhunter on Apr 14, 2021 4:53:34 GMT -5
That is one thing I feel bad about is if indeed this past Monday was the last episode of AMW 2.0, it makes Elizbaeth Vargas look like a failure, when in my opinion, of all the things that worked and didn't work, she was by far the least flawed part of the show.
I wish I had an actual example but you ever see a bad movie and you feel bad because the actor or actress in it is actually a quality actor and gave a good performance, it's just their script sucked? That's sort of how I feel about Liz Vargas. I'm not saying all of AMW's 2.0 scripts sucked or that not everything worked- but her experience and professionalism probably covered flaws that might have been more glaring otherwise. She was put in an almost impossible situation having to follow the legend of John Walsh. Even Unsolved Mysteries just decided to not even have a host when they came back because of Robert Stack's legacy (I don't count Dennis Farina since those episodes were essentially remastered reruns).
But yeah it's not her fault they made her say stupid things like "did you see Larry Chism in 1978?". Like shouldn't it be did you see him in 2021? What relevance is seeing him 40 years ago now? For goodness sake, I was years away from born in 1978 and this is a show brought in for sweeps trying to appeal to an 18-49 age demographic. Why are we asking THAT demographic many of whom are also 80's born like me if they saw a guy in the 1970s? LOL
|
|
