With the departure of both Gil Grissom and Catherine Willows, who would be lead in the next CSI season? I believe that Sara, Nick and Greg, as characterised as they are, neither of them will be willingly to lead the CSI-team. The choice would be dr. Ray Langstrom. Whether Fishburne is doing the job for another season of three, that's another question....
:wtf: If Ray became the new team leader i.e. boss, then that would be the final jump the shark moment for me. Having the newest CSI lead the place is just silly and wrong. Being the current asst. supervisor Nick would logically be the next in line for boss. Because of her temporary departure I'm not sure whether Sara or Greg would be next in line for asst. supervisor though, but either way they both have seniority over Langston. But Ray as the new leader? Even if I liked them...no, just no, it's completely illogical. Rant over.
I'm thinking Nick will be next supervisor. TBTP has usually been pretty logical with these decisions (for example with Ecklies promotions) so I'm hoping they follow the same line. But I admit I'm little afraid they decide to make Langston the leader, but there's just no way that would work.I can understand why some people would want him as a leader, since Fishburne is a lead actor. But that doesn't change the fact the character Langston has only been a CSI for two years, and even though he seems to be a superhero, there's no way he could take responsibility for the whole team yet. Though I'm personally more interested about who will be the next assistant supervisior, because I want Greg to take that place
If Ray leap frogs any of the CSI's who have been there longer than him, than I will officially stop watching the show because that will be just plain WRONG.
With the two original leads gone in addition to another original regular CSI (Warrick) and the on again off again appearances of Sara, if the show is to remain on the air I think they would need to do a major overhaul. I think they realized in Season 5 that the show didn't work well unless they had a strong, unified team. And regardless of Laurence Fishburne's star power, they messed up with the way they brought him in, and there is no way they can ignore that fact now and fix it, at least not if they are paying attention to the fans. Disclaimer: I mean some of the fans. I am not so arrogant as to post here "most" of the fans and claim to speak for everyone out there. And neither should anyone else. But if taken as a sampling of fans, these boards would seem to indicate that a large percentage of them do not like the way Ray's character is being written. I say, being written, not the character himself as people do seem to like him, just not what they've turned him into.
If Nick for some reason decided he wanted to remain assitant supervisor, then I think they should bring in Lauren Holly to be the new supervisor. I think she would fit in with the rest of the cast very nicely. But, I'm hoping Marg will stay with the show and Catherine stays supervisor. However, if Sara/Jorja decides to stay on full time, since she's been a CSI longer than Greg, I wouldn't mind if she was Nick's assistant supervisor. Of course if she stayed full time and they wanted her to still be with Gil then they'd have to say he is in Vegas and maybe he's teaching somewhere or something... cause otherwise, her staying full time and him being in Paris or wherever would just be weird with them still being together. I know absence makes the heart grow fonder, but in that scenario they would never get a chance to see each other. I'd like to see CSI survive longer than ER did, but I think they have to tread very carefully here. Again though, I'm really hoping that Marg decides not to leave.
When Catherine leaves Nick should be the new leader, I swear if tptb make their favorite CSI Ray leader I'll stop watching PERIOD.
As much as I would love to see Sara or Greg step into the leadership role, realistically it'll probably end up being Nick. But Nick may not be the best choice because he has such a strong compassion for the victims instead of being objective like Grissom and Catherine were. At the same time, he is assistant supervisor so he's the obvious choice. I'm hoping that Marg doesn't leave also. The show is finally getting back on track after everything that happened in season 8-9. It seems unfair to Catherine to just leave everything after a year and a half of supervisoring.
I'm just tossing it out there, but when has Nick's empathy for victims ever interfered with his job? I can think of times where it has helped him solve cases, and his caring and compassion have always been a comfort to the victims' families, but I don't recall a time where it hindered the solving of a case. Actually, I just left a job because the managers had absolutely no care or concern for the employees or the customers. I don't think that type of feeling keeps a person from being a good leader or manager. In fact, quite the opposite.
I totally disagree. Nick would want to lead the CSI team. I have never seen Nick characterized as not want to be in charge. If Langston became the new CSI boss tptb will destroy the show. Not to mention the angry fans they would have on their hands. I totally agree with you Smokey. Being a team leader and boss has nothing to do with how emotionally attached to a case you get. Everyone of them have gotten emotionally attached to their cases. Being a boss has to do with your ability to lead a team and command their respect. It has to do with caring for your employees and being a 'counselor'. The ability to reprimand when needed, motivate your team, and compliment when they do a good job. Nick has shown his ability to do that. He has shown the ability to lead and to rally the troops. "ReDrum" is a perfect example of this. Being emotionally attached to a case has NOTHING to do with being a good boss and using that as an argument is a moot point. There is no way you could do this job and not let emotions come out. Again, both Grissom and Catherine have had this happen to them, so has Langston. Langston loses his temper way too much with suspects, so if you're going by showing emotions for a case then this would mean he wouldn't be a good supervisor just because of that. Nick is the logical choice and I'm not saying that just because Nick's my favorite character. Sara wouldn't be promoted as her past is against her. I mean, in reality, Ecklie would never had hired her back after her insubordination nor would he have called her to ask if she knew someone. Grissom, yes, her no! Ecklie himself said of complaints in her file, so she wouldn't be promoted. The DUI itself should have had her fired. That would prevent her from being a supervisor or Asst. supervisor, too. Not to mention the fact that Grissom is in Paris and she isn't. Sorry that marriage makes no sense and marriages like that wouldn't last. If Grissom was in Vegas, maybe, but still, her history prevents it. Greg, I can't see him as a leader as he hasn't shown his ability to lead. He's a follower and that was shown in 'ReDrum', as well. With his history as a labrat (and when I liked him best), no one would respect him as a leader. They would always see labrat crazy Greg. You have to have a certain bravado to be a CSI leader and he doesn't have that, as well. Of course, this is just a TV show so really anything is possible. :lol:
speedystokesgirl- I think it's unfair to judge Greg's leadership abilities when we haven't had a chance to see them. For all we know Greg could be a great leader with skills that precede his reputation as the 'crazy lab rat' but he just hasn't been given the necessary storyline to prove this. I do agree that Nick is the logical choice, but I think Greg has the potential to be a great asst. supervisor.
Oh, I totally believe you. For me, Nick is the best candidate. He has shown over the past few seasons that he is more than capable for the job. Both Greg and Sara have matured quite a bit over the years. I could see either being assistant supervisor. The only drawback I see is that we haven't really seen them in a leadership position. If they had glimpses of Sara taking charge at a scene for some reason, or Greg (who appears to be back in the lab temporarily) take charge over the other rats, I think it could convince many of their abilities. Just because Greg followed the others in "Redrum" doesn't necessarily mean he's a born follower. Nick's just that charismatic as a leader. And the only ones who would still be very familiar with Greg's lab rat days (Nick and Sara) are also the two who got along best with him and would probably give him at least a chance to prove his mettle. (Hodges doesn't count. Their relationship was too adversarial.)
Yes, but Greg has shown to be a follower in many episodes. I was just using 'Redrum' as one example. I don't think it is unfair to judge it. The writer's have never shown it probably because they don't see that in Greg's character. After 11 seasons (well at least since he's been in the field) there are no examples of showing him to be a leader. That is very telling. We've seen that potential in every CSI except him. If Greg wants to be an Asst. Supervisor or Supervisor then he needs to start stepping up to the plate and show he can do it. (however, I don't see that happening as the tptb and writers probably won't write it.) Not EVERYONE is capable of being a leader and I think Greg (as he's been shown and written) is one of those people. It's not a bad thing or a jab against him, just that not everyone can be a leader. Sara has the potential to be an Asst. Supervisor, but her history would prevent it. Warrick (if he was still around) could be, but his reluctance would prevent him.
Exactly what I was thinking. Some may say they have leadership qualities that haven't been shown, but if they haven't been shown then how do we know they have them?? If the writers haven't written it, it doesn't exist. We can infer what we want about the characters and what they are made of, but when it comes down to it, anything other than what they have shown us on the show is something we've made up or decided for ourselves.