Now That Petersen, Fox, Dourdan Are Gone

myfuturecsi: You're talking about Luka Kovac? Yeah, he's gorgeous ;p

HoneyBee: Did you understand what I was getting at? Hopefully I at least partially satisfied your question...Sorry I couldn't elaborate more...The 'deeper' trains of thought I ride on tend to be rather unexplainable to everyone but me

 

I think many fans are comparing Billy to Laurence, and that's not it. LF is a totally dfferent type character playing Dr. Langston, and he's great, but he's not Billy Petersen! No one ever can replace the guy that Zuiker choose to play Grissom so long ago. And the funny thing is, he was happy in Chicago, and wasn't interested in doing a series. The [Zuiker & Bruckheimer] sent him the script, and he liked it, never imagining that it or he would be such a HIT:thumbsup: nor last so long. He was born to play this role. And what he has no one else on this show, and I'm speaking for myself. His overwhelming screen presence, the way he delivers his lines so perfect/precise. The charm that drips from every pore in his body, his whole demeanor. The tone of his voice, so so soothing and seductive. His expressions, magnetic. An if one searched the world over, I'll bet there's no CSI that has his exceptional looks. He's one of a kind, & what will his fans miss about him EVERYTHING and this role was the anti-climax of his career at least on TV. He was the heart of CSI. This is my opinion on this ever controversial topic!

 

I'm a newbie to CSI, getting most of my fix off of Spike TV reruns. I only recently caught up enough that I started watching it weekly on prime time. In my humble, the show is likely doomed to fail, now that Grissom is gone. He was the hub and foil of all the other characters. No matter what the reason, good or bad, they'd go to him and get advice, chastisement, or solace. Now that both Grissom and Sara are gone, but seem to be in storage in the rain forests of Costa Rica, there's always the possibility of a "show is dying and needs an emergency bail out" return of one or both of them, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Now, on to the new guy. Dr. Langston is a newbie himself, and it's that aspect of his character that fails the series. Had he been at least a CSI from somewhere else (like Mike Keppler?) the writers wouldn't have to waste as much time on his inability to dust for prints, and could concentrate on actually producing a forensics rich plot, instead of the lame story we were served in his second appearance sans Grissom last week. The show's producers, Petersen included, really missed the boat by introducing the new guy as a rookie. I just don't think the show has the time to spend "bringing him up to speed". I'd love to see the ratings since Sara, Warrick, and now Grissom have departed. I bet there wasn't much of a hit without the first two, but I can't see them holding up with the main character now just a memory. While I'm here, who decided that the Riley character would work as a viable replacement for Sara/Warrick? She belongs on Miami or New York maybe, but doesn't have the talent or presence to be anything more than totally one dimensional.
Just my opinion.

 

WOW, well said scktwstdfrk Awesome analysis of the whole issue. and BTW WELCOME I agree with everything you said:thumbsup:

 

The ratings have been just as strong and consistent as they were before Grissom, including when Sara left. The News file thread posts the ratings every week.

Grissom's final episode had large ratings only due to the fact it was his final episode and people who probably haven't watched in awhile, came back to watch his exit.

I disagree that the show is going to fail without Grissom. In the beginning they may have gone to Grissom for advice and such, but Grissom himself said "I have no more students to teach" (or something like that). The CSI's pretty much worked with Grissom as equals for a number of seasons now.

However, time could tell, but I don't think it will fail as the show has maintained its numbers in ratings.

Now, I do agree with you concerning Riley. Though I like the brother/sister thing that they seem to have going on between her and Greg, she just bugs me. Maybe that will change, but I'm doubting that.

I think LF has what it takes to maintain the show. I mean we're going to get overkill from him because he is the male lead, but I like his character and his fans will come to watch too.

 

FWIW, I've seen the actress in other things, and she's quite good. But she hasn't been given much to work with so far. And that's understandable, given the tumult of so many cast members leaving. Hopefully things will settle down for all of them, and she will get a chance to develop in a manner similar to the other series regulars.

 

I respect the fact that you feel that way, I just think that quitting CSI without even trying to give LF a chance is a little ridiculous, and this is of course my opinion. I think that LF is an awesome guy and an even more amazing actor. No one is saying he is replacing WP, but he is doing an awesome job "filling in" for him.

The ratings have actually stayed the same, which means obviously, picking LF was a good choice.

As fas as bringing Langston in as a newbie, I find it interesting. Like when Nick was teaching him how to dust a print, we've never really seen them teach someone how to do that before. So in a way, they are teaching us things too. It's different when you come into a show where they know how to do everything. Here, they are showing him learn in the field as he goes, which to me, is quite realistic.

Yes WP was great, but he's gone. And for some, it is a hole which will be hard to fill, if ever. But for crying out loud give the man a chance at least. Then you would actually have a basis as to why you feel the way you feel.

 

Thanks for the lead to the ratings thread. I'm also new here, and didn't realize they were available. I just had a look at the ratings and had to note the Thursday night show was up against "Hell's Kitchen" and a rerun of "Grey's Anatomy". I don't know if that's a normal finish for the show in terms of regular peer group competition, as I've never been interested in their ratings before, because I've never considered it an issue. It appears HK did half of what CSI did in numbers. So, I'm not even sure if any of it is significant yet, but the numbers were good, and that's a fact.

I think most of us were caught off guard by the exit of GG. I'm still of the opinion, generally, that an unknown number of viewers will slowly drift away once the novelty of Fishburne's character wears off. I think they'll tire of his child-like innocence, and will wish the character had more to offer technically as a forensics expert from the get go. I think LF is an excellent actor in the right venue, but CSI isn't it. I still think (and some current and ex-cast members agree based on their quotes) that Petersen was the central foil that drove the show and the rest of them were just peripheral. Not to say that there weren't some excellent episodes with some exceptional acting by those people. They all had talent and skills of their own, but the show has regularly revolved around Grissom and his ability to simplify a problem to it's lowest common denominator, to sift through the confusion and redirect the team when they'd get sidetracked, or just to find a way to calm things down when things were close to breaking down. Hats off to the writers for enabling Petersen's character to be all of that in a one hour show, while still allowing him to occasionally solve a crime or two with his forensic acumen along the way. However, I admit I was more than a bit disappointed in the most recent show. I don't know if the new writers from Battlestar Galactica were to blame, but the whole premise of the show was really a bit ridiculous. It sounded like it was dreamed up on a space ship. I'm surprised the producers decided to let it go on. I hope the writing gets better, or the ratings may begin to suffer, in spite of the best efforts of the remaining characters. They are, after all, only as good as the scripts they're fed. So in hindsight, maybe LF wasn't as much to blame as the script and show premise. I still think he should have been introduced as a fully qualified CSI from somewhere else. The teaching gig could have been a self imposed sabbatical as the result of some terrible forensic mishap from a previous CSI career, or something like that, that we could slowly learn about over future shows, but no specifics, to keep us guessing. It would give his character more flexibility. I think it would work better, but I'm not the creative consultant, so what do I know? Maybe the writers will see the light and swerve towards something like what I've suggested, if things do start to look like failing. It's TV, and anything can happen, right?

So I'm thinking, the ratings are good for now, and the ratings, like the evidence, never lie (do they?). I'd like to think Fishburne will be able to make us all forget about Petersen, but I'm (once again) not holding my breath. I'll probably watch a few more episodes, to see how it unfolds, but I think it's game over pretty soon. Especially, if the writing doesn't improve.
Again, just my opinion.

 

Oh yeah, Luka helped me forget about Doug Ross pretty fast..:drool:.

I think the show is going to do fine without Grissom. It will be tough to go on, but at least TPTB are trying to keep it on the air..they could have just cancelled and some argue it should have been cancelled, but I beg to differ.

Now if George Eads leaves, I might eat my words:guffaw:! Pass the ketchup please!!

 

I really like what you said..Especially about Riley..for me, personally, she's unprofessional, annoying, clingy and (as you perfectly worded) ONE dimensional. I can't see her anywhere but NY or Miami. Great comment.

As for introducing LF as a rookie, I'm SO WITH YOU on that!! I'm sure Billy and TPTB had a reason for doing it that way (Maybe they wanted to really show Nicky/Cath/Eric's superiority as CSIs?), but I think giving the guy a little more experience, rather than having him learn from square one (which, I have also said, is kinda sucky cos Grissom won't be there to mentor him) would have been better for the entire team and the show. It's not that Langston isn't worth it, it's just that he's going from Mr. Academic to Mr. Hands On and it's a TOTALLY different world...and definitley not something you just go "do", you know?

But I am all for giving LF a chance, I have said that several times...No, he's not going to fill the hole of Billy's absence, but he's graciously doing his best to carry the show on, and integrate his own spin into it, and he deserves respect for that.

 

The ratings did, in fact, decrease after JF left, going from averaging close to 20 million per episode to around 18 million. Then the writer's strike happened and from that point on there were too many variables to make a definitive conclusion. Shows came back at different times, finale schedules were different, and the next season premieres were at different times due to the elections. Plus, CSI has had other ratings grabbers with Warrick's death, JF returning, and WP leaving. So the real test will be how the new CSI is able to hold on to the viewers after all these changes, and things have settled down.

Although I find LF's character interesting from a writing standpoint, I just don't find it all that believable. When Greg, who is highly intelligent according to his biography, took a CSI level 1 position with a salary cut, most of us thought that hard to swallow. So now we have an MD and an academic starting as a CSI level 1; it just strains credibility to me. I think I would have liked it better if Wendy was the newbie and Ray was a higher-up something. LF has a commanding stage presence and is the new star, whether we like it or not, so I'll be interested to see how his character advances; I just hope it is somewhat realistic.

I could be wrong, certainly wouldn't be the first or last time, and maybe LF will be more of an asset than I think, but I predict that the ratings will level out in the 16 million range. I'm kind of a ratings junkie and have analyzed them over the past 3 years. If you factor in competition and the age of the show, CSI will remain a ratings success, but it is passed its prime.

 

I also agree with most of what you said...I don't think CSI is quite past it's prime yet, but even before Billy officially left, I was already telling people that I don't see CSI lasting for longer than 3 more seasons (so about to Season 12) MAX. And I mean MAX, like I think it's going to lose viewers, I think ratings will drop, I think they'll try and figure out what's up, write some more stuff...I think Marg will be the next to go, and I honestly believe the rest of the original cast will slowly follow...I think it'd be Marg then George, then Robert then Eric...and I HATE to say that, like it makes me litearlly sick, but that's just the way I see it going...I'm starting to become a ratings junkie too....slowly but surely ;p

I have never tried to predict what a show will do, but I have never been so attached to a show like CSI, that I even cared...I agree with the strained credibility thing too...I mean, I realise Langston is really smart, but that move seems more like a Miami or NY strategy to me.
I want to give LF/Langston a chance, but I think like Riley, his presence is a bit too forced (Riley's is WAY forced), even though Langston is by far more humble and willing to be wrong/learn than Riley is..I STILL can't stand her.

On the other hand, I HATE to see the show go to crap (so to speak). I feel like if anything, I'd like to see it suceed for everyone still on board, including Billy, but I guess only time will tell.

 

I disagree with you on a number of points.

The ratings dropped after Jorja left but that was more to do with the impending writer's strike-all of the shows on tv took a big hit even before the strike because no knew it was coming.

After it was over, the shows had a (and still are) having a hard time getting those viewers back because during the strike, tv viewers found new horribes such as video games, etc.

It really had nothing to do with Jorja.

In terms of passing its prime-ratings yes, chances are it will not get those ratings back as it did when it was still fresh and new, it's like any product out there. It has a life cycle, it reached its peak and is slowly levelling off.

In terms of quality of programming, it's still as great as ever even during these turbulent times when three cast members left (two of whom felt the show could still go on without them-Jorja and Billy). The acting from the remaining characters is stellar and the new ones are giving it their all.

What's great about this season, as I'm hoping (and with the Taylor Swift story) we are finally going to see some flushing out of other charcters like Nick who sat in the sidelines while GSR took centre stage (fault TPTB for that one-not the fans).

It's certainly not going to go on forever, but it's still got some life in it yet. I wouldn't count the old girl:guffaw:down and out just yet.

 

I also have to disagree and agree with myfuturecsi. If they had started Langston off on a higher postion, then eveyone would be flipping out about the fact that he didn't have the training, and blah blah blah. It doesn't matter if he was a physician. A physician and anyone in the medical field is extremely different than what a CSI is. If they wanted to put him in the same position as Doc, then yes that would make sense, or even as a consultant. But then people would be complaining about that too.

Ratings have been dipping ever since Grey's Anatomy came into the picture. They were the original competition to CSI. And since then, the ratings have never been back up to where they were around Season Five. And like myfuturecsi has said, every show has a cycle that they go through. Even if WP, JF, and GD had stayed, the ratings still would have slipped. Let's face it, a procedural crime drama can only go so long until it gets redundant for some fans. I know people who have stopped watching because the cases are being recycled, with little changes here and there, not because of who has come and gone.

CSI is near the end of it's run, and I say that almost definitively, or at least in my opinion anyways. I honestly would not want to see it last another five season if the quality and integrity of the show will be compromised. That is what CSI is known for; it's quality. So I'd rather it end next season in it's somewhat prime, then continue going on, regardless of who's still on board.