I'm finally starting to accept that the writers of this show have no intention of expanding the backstory of any
of the main characters. And I think I'll be okay with that choice as long as they put more effort into making the cases
as interesting as they can possibly be.
Last night was a step in that direction because the two cases were very interesting, plus they switched up the teams a little. Doc Hawkes and Danny should be working every case together; they play off each other way better than either of them did with Mac or Stella.
The first case dealt with a guy who was shot in a cemetery and it was all because of a big, organized "water gun fight." I had no idea these things existed. The second case was a woman who choked to death on a live octopus. Tasty. So I'm going to try something different here. Rather than outline the episode, I'm going to give you, the reader, a glimpse into my twisted mind as I layout my thought process while watching this episode. Here goes, from the start of the episode to the end:
- I hate Stella's hair. Cut it now.
- Gary Sinise always looks constipated.
- Why does that headstone have a TV in it? How do I get one?
- Sid is the greatest Medical Examiner to ever grace any television program.
- Is it just me, or is Lindsay completely worthless? I still miss Aiden.
- Making a living by suing restaurants sounds like a good idea.
- Peruvian centipedes are probably pretty crunchy.
- Danny just ate one. Yep, they sound crunchy.
- Something laid eggs in that dead lady's ear? Eww.
- Who the hell would pay two grand to eat a plate of deep-fried grasshoppers?
- Hey, isn't she from Over*There? What happened to her southern accent?
- I want to see Det. Flack get in a fist fight with Det. Tripp from CSI: Miami.
- Convicted felons are dumb. Period.
- I wonder if octopus ink tastes good?
- Wait... are octopus ink and octopus pee one and the same? Scratch that last thought.
- Wayne Knight!!!
- Wait, didn't Wayne Knight wear glasses? I wonder if he got the "Lasik?"
- Okay, Lindsay isn't completely worthless. She ate that fried spider.
- All Mac eats is pizza; no wonder he looks constipated.
So there you go. That's what I wrote down while watching this episode... I'm crazy, I know. But like I said, it wasn't a horrible episode because these were some of the better cases the NY team has investigated this season. Your thoughts?















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-02-2006 @ 1:43PM
Mark said...
I find it disappointing that the second spin-off from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - where the characterization and development of backstory, relationships within the CSI unit(s), and the interplay between the characters is so strong - simply cannot develop any chemistry between the characters, save for the generally excellent Messrs Cahill and Giovinazzo, and where the characters seem to exist simply to spout forensibabble.
The original CSI's strengths, in my opinion, are that the characters are sufficiently diverse in their interests and opinions that the audience can readily empathise/sympathise with them and yet their conflicts still represent themselves genuinely and believeably - just as their camaraderie is convincing, so are their conflicts; and that they are allowed to develop a backstory over the course of one or several seasons.
The writers understand that the show will benefit in terms of placing clues or markers across many episodes which will then allow the actors to flesh out their roles as more realistic people rather than simply objects who move the plot along; the recurring guest stars such as Catherine Willows' father also ground the series in a reality where not everything is clean-cut and solved by the end of the viewing hour. CSI: Miami does this also (and does it well, though not quite as well as CSI in my opinion) giving each of the characters several emotional mini-arcs across the various seasons which allows them to develop into more rounded characters, and bringing back regular guest stars.
Of course, a difficulty with any of these shows is that they have the problems of fitting in the backstories and character development of a relatively large ensemble cast into each 40-minute episode, yet where CSI and CSI: Miami succeed, CSI:NY does not even seem interested in pursuing this, preferring to focus on the A- and B-stories of each episode with minimal engagement between the characters. This seems especially pointless when the New York incarnation of CSI has the least principal stars of all three series' casts.
There are many such 'procedural' shows, be they forensics, police, medical or any combination of those, on television at the moment and the reason why shows such as the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, House, Grey's Anatomy (to name only three) continue to receive critical plaudits while at the same time enjoying healthy ratings is because they have managed to strike the correct balance between pursuing some intriguing procedure-focused plots and affording the writers the opportunity to build up each character's history, viewpoints and attitudes, to the extent that we believe we 'know' these fictional characters.
As a regular viewer of all three CSI shows, the work done on the original and Miami series gives me a feeling of insider-hood: I believe that I understand what Gil Grissom, Calleigh Duquesne or Jim Brass will do in certain situations. However, in CSI:NY - with the exceptions of Flack and Messer - I am still not familiar with them, save for the one-line pitch for each character (eg, other than the "Taylor is a former marine whose wife died on 9/11", there is very little to go on). Without that sense of history and emotional depth, I believe that CSI:NY is destined to be remembered always as a CSI series too far.
Reply
3-03-2006 @ 3:38AM
Gordon Werner said...
If I remember from my days living in NYC ... the Forensics unit is the CSU ... they don't wear jackets or vests that say it either (execpt maybe police)
IMHO they should have left NYC to law and order and instead make CSI -LA ... which would make sense since that is where they are all filmed.
Reply