One good reason would have been because Danny actually did have Lucy at the time...But yeah, she was on maternity leave. Or that it was safer to leave her in the breakroom (which is where all those lab techs were gathered), as opposed to in the lab? I admit I wondered about this too when GfD aired, but... I'd argue just the opposite: yeah, we hear Danny talk about Lucy a lot, I'm totally sure he's her motivation, but save for those moments in GfD and "Dead Reckoning" (and to be blunt, it's a lot easier holding/playing with a baby than it is to actually take care of her), we've never really seen him deal with her, if anyone knows what I mean. Everything we've seen so far points me to thinking that it's Lindsay who's the primary caregiver (bringing her to/home from the lab, rocking her to sleep, waiting for the babysitter as Lucy throws up on apparently all her clothes). That's involvement, and pretty patient involvement to boot; and it forms a bond. I know Danny loves Lucy a lot, and I'm sure half the reason we haven't seen any actual caretaking has to at least be because of the wheelchair -- once he's out of it, if he isn't already, I'm sure he'll be superdad and all. But so far I have to stick with what I've seen. That's exactly my point, though, that it basically comes down to opinion -- I like the show, but I really don't think it'd feel the same without Lindsay. It didn't last night for the part that I caught; I think that's why I was okay with not watching. (It's something that I've really been thinking about since, though -- because I loved the first season of NY and Lindsay wasn't there either...) Either way, it's up to individual viewers whether they like what X character brings to the show or not (or whether they find it necessary or not), but they all bring something to it, and we know that because they all have their fans. And on the other hand, the show would probably survive perfectly fine without those elements. I have to agree that the show definitely wouldn't be the same without Stella/Flack/Danny/etc. But being completely realistic, I think Mac's the only character who the show literally could not go on without (and I'm a little iffy on even him, ever since Langston replaced Grissom and Vegas doesn't appear to be floundering). I don't know about her absence, though I personally wouldn't bet on this being specific to her. To be honest, I'm getting close to screaming over the character absences from these shows in the past few weeks (Sid missing twice, Adam missing last week, Natalia missing last week from Miami, Lindsay's basically the last straw for me). If it is for budgetary reasons, I think the franchise could've handled it in much better ways.
The problem with a TV show is that it isn't just about the "facts." Yes, there are canon events that happened on the show that can't be refuted. Those canon events are always up for interpretation, though. The fact that Linday has broken the case a few times to me doesn't make her a viable character. They've all broken the case at one time or another. It doesn't make her unique or irreplaceable. The fact is Lindsay does demonstrations. It's not a fact that they are fun/interesting because I personally find those demonstrations annoying and pointless instead of fun/interesting, so IMO those don't make her irreplaceable or important to the show. Just because she does one thing we don't see from another character doesn't make her a viable character or mean she does something another character couldn't pull off if she was gone and TPTB wanted to continue with, say, demonstrations, for example. Anyone could do a demonstration when they're explaining evidence and IMO they'd all do it better than Lindsay does. I disagree that she "often" looks outside the box. She's been sent back to reexamine evidence more than once because she didn't look outside the box and came up with the wrong answer. Other times she's simply found the answer by trial and error and then congratulated herself because she eventually found the answer just by going through all the possibilities one by one. That's not looking outside the box at all. Yes, any character could be played by another actor/actress. My point is that with any other actor/actress/character on the show it wouldn't be the same to have someone else playing that character or to change that character's personality and the show would be lacking if either of those things were to happen. I couldn't imagine another actor playing Flack and not missing Eddie Cahill or losing some aspect of Flack's personality that Eddie brought to Flack. The same goes for any other character/actor on the show. Lindsay, on the other hand, is so non-descript and bland as a character that any actress could play her and it wouldn't make a difference. They could pull a soap opera move tomorrow and recast the role and it wouldn't make any difference to me that someone else was playing Lindsay. In fact, most of the time I dislike Anna Belknap's acting so much suddenly recasting the role would be an improvement because the way the character comes off would change drastically IMO. Those aren't "facts," but they are viable reasons for why I want her gone from the show. And I guess that was kind of what I was trying to say before. There's no way to "prove" one way or another or present irrefutable "facts" that she should go or stay because too much is up for interpretation.
This exact thing stands for any other character, though. If what they currently bring to the show (a specific "thing" of theirs that we don't see from any other character) is not enough to make them viable to it, then I honestly don't see what else would be. I get that there are any number of interpretations for canon events, what someone might find cute another might find annoying as hell, etc, etc. That's true in any medium, although I have to say particularly so with TV. But even the traits I do sometimes find annoying, I can't argue that X character is the only one who does it. So if X character's currently-individual traits ultimately don't matter -- because any other actor/character could pull off the same things if X character was gone -- then why would any other character, except maybe Mac, be important to the show? Not even "more" or "less" important than Lindsay, just point-blank. What's the point of them, since any of their "things" can theoretically be replaced? Anyone can be snarky, anyone can be hotheaded, anyone can be tech-savvy or geeky, and it goes on. Sorry, I guess I meant to say she's often the most "abstract" thinker on the team. Although I still think "outside the box" could apply to that definition, because I don't think missing the right conclusion the first time has much to do with linear thinking (since it's something they've all done, multiple times). What I meant is that if Hawkes is the one whose all about scientific and medical fact, she's the one who's about the myths and the ancient legends and the coincidences and the random-facts-no-scientist-would-really-need-to-know-about. That's usually the very reason Mac ends up sending her back to look over evidence again, I'm not disputing that, but it's also been the very thing that's pointed them in the right direction on more than one occasion. Annoying or unnecessary or out-of-place-on-a-crime-show or not, she brings that. Theoretically, any other character could bring the same thing, but again, see above -- and I also think for this one trait, they'd need some serious character changes in another character (except maybe Sid) to have it make sense. I get that. But to offer a differing opinion again, Lindsay is not nondescript, it literally would not be the same (I can't even picture it) to have another actress playing the character or another character filling her role. She offers a lot to the show. I want her to stay on it. My interpretation and opinion isn't any more or less valid than yours, so no, there's no irrefutable fact there on why she should stay or go. But I think it is fact that people are generally more willing to tolerate an undesirable element in something they enjoy, than people are willing to tolerate a favourite element being removed from that something they enjoy. Generally because that favourite element is a big part of what makes the experience enjoyable for them. (I mean, I've seen people complain about Lindsay, but I have to say I've never come across anyone who actually stopped watching NY because she's on it. Whereas I have come across fans who stopped watching because Aiden died/Angell died/DL broke up/whatever, so I can't see how Lindsay would be the exception to that.) So it comes back to what I said before -- a very good reason Lindsay should stay is because not everyone wants her to go.
Anyone can do those things on some level, but that's where we get into what each actor brings to the character. No one can be geeky like AJ Buckley makes Adam geeky. No one can pull off snarky the way Eddie Cahill pulls it off. Each actor inhabits the character a certian way that makes it hard for me to imagine anyone else portraying said character - except Anna Belknap. Any other capable actress can bring as much, and most likely more, to the table as Anna Belknap has with her portrayal of Lindsay. There's no depth to Anna's performance or any character traits she brings to the table that make me believe she inhabits the character. As Lindsay is now, there's nothing about her that makes me say I'd miss the character if she was gone and there's nothing about Anna Belknap's performance that makes me say I can't imagine anyone else playing her. IMO, she's essentially a list of characteristics and roles, i.e., wife, mother, csi, lab tech, demonstration giver, brown noser, etc., without any distinct personality where as the other characters have certain traits, but also have a distinct personality to go along with those traits. They're all about giving random facts that no scientist would need to know about. That's not something that's unique to Lindsay. Each of them at one point or another has explained something having to do with myth, legends and coincidences at some point or another and each of them has had that aspect of their personality point them in the direction of the correct conclusion. So for her to be out of the picture wouldn't be the end of that type of thinking or they wouldn't be able to have some other character explain those types of things for it to make sense. Lindsay usually only finds out that type of stuff through research and anyone can do that. I can't think of anything that resulted from her already established knowledge that couldn't be in another character's knowledge set. I have come across people who have stopped watching because she's on it. I've also come across people who no longer like their favorite characters becasue they've been altered or acted OOC to accomodate Lindsay. To me those (along with the others I've mentioned) are very good reasons why she should go even though some people like her and some people manage to tolerate her. Actually, that some people stopped watching the show because of her while others are only tolerating her is a more compelling argument for why she should go than "some" people like her is a compelling argument for why she should stay.
There's a difference between saying an actor/actress has brought nothing to the table that you like; and an actress having brought nothing to the table, period. No one can pull off Lindsay the way Anna Belknap can; not in a believable way. And I believe the way she inhabits the character is the only thing that makes the character halfway realistic. Both in her strong and weak moments. No one can pull off the air of aloof-peppiness the same way. That may be where we'll forever disagree, but as far as actors bringing interesting element to characters, she's done it as much as the others have, imo. Disliking the element or the personality she's brought doesn't make it nonexistent. I could argue that there's nothing interesting or endearing about geekiness, or snarkiness, or hotheadedness, or whatever. Would that mean Flack/Adam/Danny/whoever are better off inhabited by different actors who could bring better elements to the characters? Examples of when any other character has repeatedly brought explanations about myths/legends/etc (and moreover, has somewhat used said myths to guide their investigation) -- would be nice. Except maybe Sid, and even he's more about the creepy facts than legends. I'm not arguing that traits don't cross over into other characters sometimes. Lindsay has plenty of geek in her herself. As do Danny and Flack, for that matter. Sid is just as good with the medical facts as Hawkes often is. All seven of them have had excellent snark-moments before. (ETA: Sorry, eight: Sid's had some great ones, too.) They're people, obviously some of them are going to have the same interests and stuff. But as far as a character who can basically be counted on to run with the abstract whenever they get a chance? That's Lindsay, and imo, it would be very out of character for one of the others to suddenly adopt that trait. And yeah, obviously Lindsay does the research to find that stuff out, and any other character would be able to do the same. The question is whether they would bother to. And so far as I've seen, Lindsay's the only one who continuously bothers to look into that abstract stuff before it becomes absolutely relevant to the case. Hell, she's usually the one who ends up pointing out how it's absolutely relevant to the case. (Although I might be misremembering the show, so if there are examples of the others repeatedly doing the same, please let me know ) That actually comes across more than a little disparaging to the people who do like her. And not that show-producers haven't shown disregard to fans of their show before, but arguing that they totally absolutely should? I could possibly see the argument about the people who've already left because of Lindsay. But I don't see what would make the opinions of the people who like her count less than the ones who dislike her and are only tolerating her, but are still watching the show. I've run across people who can't stand Adam or Danny -- the show should get rid of them because those people's opinions count more?
If you don't like the way the actors are portraying other characters then it probably would mean for you the characters would be better off if they were played by other actors. If I didn't like the way Eddie Cahill played Flack and I thought the writing for Flack was crap I'd be criticizing his performance and questioning the relevance of Flack as a character. I don't feel that way about Flack or any other character but Lindsay, so I obviously am going to focus on her. The writing for other characters has been crap before, but the way the actors portray their characters makes the bad writing more tolerable. With Anna, the bad writing and the bad acting just accentuate each other and make it one big crap fest. You are right though, she has brought a personality to Lindsay. She's brought the selfish, unpleasant, show off, brown noser personality to Lindsay. I don't like the way Anna Belknap portrays Lindsay. I don't think she does anything for the character. In fact, I think I'm supposed to like Lindsay but the way Anna plays her is not interesting or endearing and makes me dislike her passionately. I don't think TPTB's intention is for people to find her selfish, unpleasant, a show off, or a brown noser. Can I prove that? No. But that's the impression I'm left and I absolutely think another actress could bring those intended good elements to Lindsay and therefore Anna Belknap isn't necessary and is even detrimental to the show and as long as Anna Belknap plays Lindsay the character is unecessary and even detrimental to the show. ETA: Where have I ever said I was speaking for someone other than myself? Obviously, if I'm saying Lindsay has brought nothing to the table as a character or Anna has brought nothing to the table as an actress I'm expressing an opinion; just as anyone who says she has brought something to the table would be doing the same. I shouldn't have to put "IMO" after every sentence for people to understand I'm expressing my personal opinion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to want me to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lindsay shouldn't be on the show. I can't do that just like someone can't "prove" Lindsay should stay on the show. It's all personal opinion based on personal likes, dislikes, biases, experiences, etc. Where you seek uniquness and important character elements I see blandness and something that is easily eliminated/replaced. Who's "right?" We both are. All either of us are doing is expressing personal opinions based on our interpretations of the writing and acting. Examples where Lindsay has repeatedly done those things would be nice, too. What "abstract" stuff has she run with that the other characters would be so OOC if they did the same? When I think of Lindsay "abstract" isn't the word that comes to mind with her. She seems to be more about what is obvious than what is abstract. If she was abstract she wouldn't repeatedly be told to look beyond the obvious when examining evidence. Again, examples of when Lindsay has done this would be helpful if I'm going to understand what you mean. I can't think of anything that Lindasy has done that would make me think of her as the one who brings "abstract" to the case and points out how it's relevant. I didn't say TPTB should listen to one group of fans over another. You're the one who said "some people like her" is a "very good" argument for her to stay. All the characters have "some" people who like them. What I was trying to say is that with Lindsay there are a fair amount of people who dislike her and a fair amount of people who just tolerate her. And some people who have stopped watching the show because of her. You don't see that with the other characters the way you see it with Lindsay. To me that's more compelling as an argument than "some people like her." Some people who can't stand other characters probably do think the show should get rid of them. Those people are free to start "Why Adam Should GO" and "Why Danny Should GO" threads and post their hearts out. I've been told there was once an anti-Danny thread. There was also an Anti-Angell thread before she was killed off. This thread isn't about people thinking TPTB is going to cater to them or take their opinions into account over other peoples. It's about having a place (since Lindsay/Anna fans complained about debate in the Anna/Lindsay thread) for people who don't like the character and/or actress to express their thoughts.
But the fact that Anna's portrayal of Lindsay makes you (or others) dislike the character does not mean she's been unsuccessful in bringing good personality to Lindsay. Because it's also fact that she's managed to bring the intended endearingness to many others. She's made people like the character the way -- arguably even better than the way, at least in my case -- TPTB intended. Either in spite of or directly because of that personality she's brought that to some comes across as unpleasant. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone refer to Lindsay as a "more cheerful Sara Sidle". I'm not saying that's the standard interpretation of Lindsay or that it has to be (after all, even on this board there are people who are huge fans of the same character but have completely different interpretations of him/her), or that it's strange if she so doesn't come off that way to others. But you mentioned earlier in the thread how especially on TV, any canon event is up for interpretation -- perfectly true, but it also means that neither TPTB or the actors/actresses can control how any one person interprets their portrayal of the character. These characters are protagonists. Ideally, we're supposed to like them all and find them all sympathetic, even at their worst. It doesn't always come across that way, even with me, and not only specific to Lindsay. But I wouldn't say that means the actor's been unsuccessful in carrying across the original intention, because if it came across that way to others, then they did something successfully. Additionally, I'd argue that the personality Anna's brought to Lindsay does not run contradictory to TPTB's intentions or taste, since a lot of the written element of her personality (especially in late season 2/season 3) seems to have been inspired directly by what she added to the character. Lindsay only started to be written as moody and aloof after AB had been playing her as moody and aloof for quite some time. - "Wasted" (looking into all the old wives' tales about leeches after she found them in the doctor's basement, figuring out that said doctor saw herself as some kind of witch doctor) - "Cool Hunter" (Mac had to constantly remind her to stick to the science, rather than to the tale of the curse on that building) - "Time's Up" (admittedly, with help from Hawkes -- but Hawkes was only explaining how time travel was theoretically possible, Lindsay was the one actually postulating that the professor had come from the future -- and directly after she said that, Mac told her to separate the science from the science fiction) - "Help" (going on about coincidences, no one believed her but in a way she turned out to be right) - "Grounds for Deception" (postulating that the murder weapon came from Alexander the Great's tomb, Mac didn't believe her until Hawkes came in and mentioned that the weapon was made of stone that was ancient) - Even "Boo" a little (when she was kind of accused by that police officer of letting the stories of the Amityville Horror influence her). Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head...although I still don't quite feel like I'm explaining myself correctly -- I mean, she's just usually the one who runs with or looks into the things that shouldn't have much or any basis in factual science. That's what I kind of mean by abstract, or outside the box...outside the realm of plain fact or science. And yeah, I'm not saying she's the only one who's ever done this (although I can't think of anyone else who has right now) or who ever could, but she's the one who does it repeatedly, and gets called on it almost as often. And I think it'd seem strange coming from anyone other than possibly Sid, because they may all be quirky or geeky but in general they're just more down to earth about the science. I still see it as a good argument for her to stay, because for the amount of people who like her, she's clearly doing something right. For many of those people that I've personally talked to, she's actually integral to their enjoyment of the show, in the way I expect many people here find Danny or Flack [or insert fave character's] presence integral to their enjoyment of the show. That's why I said I could see the argument for people who'd already left the show because she'd arrived (since I think many people would stop watching any show if such a huge part of their enjoyment of said show were removed, like a favourite character; and I don't see why it should be assumed that Lindsay fans would feel any differently). But for the ones who dislike her or just tolerate her, I don't think it's the same ballpark. And I probably won't until I see someone step in and tell me their agony over seeing Lindsay in nearly every episode for the past four years is equal to or greater than the agony of having their favourite character go missing for months on end, would be. She may be irritating them, but clearly not to the point where they'd trade out their favourite characters to see her go. The show is still presumably enjoyable enough for them to keep watching even while she's on it. Whereas for the people who like her, she's part of what's making the show enjoyable. I hope this is making sense And yeah, I realize the whole "if she's reaching even one person, then it's worth keeping her on the show" argument doesn't work ideally. Like with Julia on Miami, if it's pretty much unanimous consensus that she should get lost, I'd see it as a good reason she should. But I've never seen anything that comes close to suggesting that there's unanimous, or even majority consensus that Lindsay should go. At best it's fifty/fifty, so I think the fact that she's clearly making the NY experience enjoyable, or even worthwhile, for more than a few people is a good reason for her to stay. Okay...I was never actually sure of what the purpose of this thread was.
Really sorry for the double-post, but I only saw your ETA just now, and I can't go back to edit my first one. I did get that you were speaking for your own opinion, like I'm for the most part speaking for mine (or speaking from my own experience; or the part about the episodes). But in general, the title of this thread has always confused me a little, because the other thread titles on this board are fairly straightforward. "Grade ____ Episode"; "Quotes you want to hear on CSI:NY"; "Danny's Recovery -- Too Soon?" (the question mark particularly helps, because it clarifies that someone might think that his recovery isn't too soon); "Has anyone else taken an instant dislike to Haylen?; even "Who's More Damaged, Danny or Lindsay?". "Why Lindsay Must Go." doesn't really clarify that it's an opinion/rant thread, so much as it implies that there are genuine, hard-fact reasons that Lindsay absolutely needs to leave the show right the hell now. And while I know you don't need to put IMO after every sentence, not doing so only really adds to that problem. So yeah, especially if I so don't agree that Lindsay absolutely needs to leave right the hell now, I'm kind of expecting "proof" to explain to me why she does. I'm understanding better now that it's only an opinion thread, and the title is probably meant to be that inflammatory for ranting purposes; but I still think it doesn't do much for clarity's sake.
Well, the season 7 premiere is over and I still think Lindsay is a detriment to the show. Although Anna Belknap wasn't bad in the premiere it isn't saying much. IMO the writers just found a scenario to write where her wooden acting and blank facial expressions happened to fit. I think it also says a lot that they didn't delve any deeper into what makes her tick other than the surface "everyone has trouble dealing with shooting someone." Maybe I'm wrong and they'll go deeper into it, but Mac basically saying that she's started the healing process to me says they're done with the story. I guess I shouldn't complain that all they ever do is deal with the superficial since I don't think Anna Belknap is capable of handling anything deeper, but it just keeps illustrating how useless the character is. Nothing builds on what came before to create a complex or interesting character. I also think that if anyone else had shot someone while they were holding a baby there would have been hell to pay. Yes, the CSIs are cops who are trained to handle a gun, but they're not SWAT sharpshooters or snipers. Instead of a medal anyone else would've probably been up on reckless discharge of a gun and reckless endangerment of a minor charges. But Lindsay gets a medal and told she's "a warrior."
^ i totally agree with everything you say especially on the 'warrior' i personally dont think she really did that much to deserve a medal she put her child and husband in extreme danger not only has she never killed someone but there has never been any evidence that she is a confifent enough shot to know she would hit him without harming her daughter, it was just reckless in my opinion and they made it seem like she did because she was angry not because she had no other choice. i really hope they dont continue with this storyline it is cliche and anna's acting was satisfactory at best.
^^ Her child and husband were already in extreme danger. Let's not forget that Shane Casey was a psychopath who had killed several people in pretty gruesome circumstances. She clearly felt that she had no choice and saw an opportunity to shoot him without hurting her daughter, I don't think that's reckless or that anyone else would have been in trouble for doing the same thing. If anything, I'm surprised that she didn't shoot him more than once bearing in mind he'd already survived a fall from a lighthouse - it was all a little too reminiscent of Michael Myers for my liking. I do, however, agree that the whole medal thing was ridiculous.
If Danny "the go-to f*ck up" had done the same thing I would be willing to bet money the outcome of the story and ramifications for his character would've been a lot different.
Didn't he say "this was the beginning of coming to terms with it"? Odd word choice for a wrap-up, if that's what they're planning on doing (not to mention "I'm going to recommend further counselling" from the therapist). Yeah, it's possible they are planning to end it quickly, wouldn't be the first time, but Mac's words actually suggest the opposite, imo. Question: have they done this with anyone, since S2 at least? S3, arguably, if we count Stella's "Open-and-Shut"/Frankie troubles and Mac-Reed-Claire. Since then, few of the characters' stories have built on the stories that came before. Even Danny/Casey, where I think tptb tried, didn't build on what came before - otherwise, Shane probably wouldn't be hellbent on the revenge. There'd probably be fewer complaints of inconsistency, too. The stories are usually brand-new - how they build on the character is entirely related to how said character reacts to the story given their past development (which was entirely what they did with Lindsay's here). That's where the complexity comes in too, if/when the story ends up affecting them in the long run. Her child and husband were already in extreme danger, and he certainly wasn't there because of her. 2) I'll agree about the lucky shot, but Shane's gun was pointed directly under Lucy's armpit when Lindsay fired hers. She didn't have another choice.