Addressing Issues With Ray Langston

This is all from my POV and if I am discussing something already said or already has a thread I apologize.

I can sympathize with many viewers and their feelings that Ray Langston has been kinda mishandled since his inception. I can see why people argue that as a Level 1 he should not be going solo to a scene (despite what I believe is an error on their part), and I can also understand how people think that he is becoming a supervisor like character, telling people what to do and such.

At the same time I also realize that the character was a pathologist and has run a lecture circuit on criminal psychology. I don't think this negates the some people's arguments, but I think it does explain his predilection to taking charge, being a commanding person despite his low rank. I know many people I work with who tell managers what to do, they were at work earlier or showed up first, saw the situation and took charge in lieu of a real supervisor, the real supervisor sees the work being done and doesn't cede control, but works with the plan or work already in progress rather than change it up and cause issues.

ES's character Greg has just recently gotten to Level 3 in 19 Down, but passed his proficiency to get CSI Level 1 and therefore Solo a scene in Who Shot Sherlock 4 seasons ago. Yet since then he has had to have worked over 100 cases required to get Level 3 (Level 3 being 100 cases is from Pilot), why aren't people complaining about that inconsistency loudly? Those that did thought it didn't happen fast enough? I agree it took too long, but the time lines in CSI is twisted at best. Let's not forget the whole CSI Level dynamic has been tossed out the window since Sara was allowed to work solo when Nick couldn't in Let The Seller Beware, despite Nick being a Level 3 at the time and therefore right beneath Cath in the pecking order.

The amount of time between One To Go and The Grave Shift is not explained, though Ray had training before the episode (as stated by Cath), which may have included supervised crime scene investigation on day shift or such. It could have been a month, or more. In Miscarriage of Justice it was revealed that Langston was on the team for months, yet it was only 3 episodes after The Grave Shift, a mere month in viewer time. It all just fits with CSI's style, to quote CSI Files' own review of Miscarriage of Justice: "The problem with throwing a new person into a CSI show is that inevitably that person will have to prove how completely and utterly fantastic he/she is within a couple of episodes."

Also, I have seen every episode (save for Mascara (which I hate the drum intro and I dislike Friedkin's direction every time he gets behind the camera on CSI) and A Space Oddity which I am saving to watch with my gf since she's a CSI fan and a trekkie), I do think that the episodes since Disarmed and Dangerous are some of the best ensemble pieces the show has ever done save for the two I haven't seen because, well, I haven't seen them. Everyone has screentime, everyone is involved in the case(s), nobody is there for just one quick scene and then gone.

I love CSI, it is my favorite show, I can name episodes from the first 30 seconds, and give a season number and what episode number it is as well as a title (though I can't always recall titles). I have all the PC games and board games, and most of the books, and even went to the CSI exhibit twice despite my disappointment with it. And yet I find it sad how much some fans have started to nitpick, it's like trekkies trying to find everything wrong with the new movie because "it's not the trek of old I loved", it's not the same CSI either, doesn't make it better or worse, it's all in what you bring to it. :bolian:

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said, GNRFan, except for the IQ part. I would honestly doubt that any of the CSIs, save Sara or Griss, are actually geniuses, mainly because IQ is only a measure of one type of intelligence -- that generally labelled "academic intelligence". There are, however, many other types of intelligence -- namely social, emotional and practical. My understanding is that, much of the time, people with the highest IQs tend to have the lowest amounts of other types of intelligence, which is why people with "genius" IQ levels are often not the most competent in situations that require more than just sheer academic-type brainpower. As I've heard, the ideal IQ range is actually 130-140, genius range being just above 140. I've gone to schools with a lot of geniuses and they were definitely not the best students. All in all, I'd say Grissom and Sara have the lack of social and emotional intelligence that one would be likely to find in someone with such an unusually high IQ.

That said, this is probably all just a matter of semantics, so I'll push forward to my main point, which is that Greg's intelligence is really no guarantee of his CSI abilities. The job of CSI clearly requires all types of intelligence -- emotional to be able to deal with the hardships they witness on a regular basis; social to be able to deal with coworkers and suspects; and practical just to be able to keep track of details and remember directions to scenes. Greg having unusually high academic intelligence (or even being a genius) is no guarantee that he has particularly high amounts of practical intelligence. He also might just not pour his life into the job in the way that other coworkers have. Personally, I think he puts a lot into the job, but he might not, and he has, in the past, seemed to be the only main character who really maintained a life outside of work.

 

I agree with Digital Mystic.

I agree with some of the things GNRF said. Well except the IQ thing, because what Happy Harper said is true.

A couple of other things concerning LF. Everyone needs to remember that he is the male lead, this means he will get more screentime than anyone else. Petersen himself got more screen time than anyone else, at times. Please remember I said, at times.

Now, having said that, Petersen did have a different mentality than most actors and Hollywood; he is a stage actor and has worked a lot with ensemble casts, so in his mind, CSI was very much an ensemble and made sure that the entire cast was treated as ensemble.

Yes, I know LF has been on the stage too, but has he worked with ensemble theaters like Petersen? However, LF may not be the one insisting on the more screentime than anyone else.

So let's just look at the facts. LF is a big time movie actor and tptb are going to push him hard on the show. Whether you like it or not you have to accept it. Maybe next season will be different.

Look at Langston's work history and he probably has more experience in crime than a lot of them at CSI.

As for working a crime scene alone as a CSI Level one. Yes the show has indicated that Level one's shouldn't work alone, but the ONLY experience we had with that was Holly Gribbs. Remember, though, she was on her first night of work and Langston didn't work alone on his first night either.

To compare Nick not working crime scenes alone, remember, he did, just not crime scenes where a DEATH was involved. This was because Grissom didn't think he was ready, however, the show never really delved into as why Grissom thought that, just the surface.

In reality any CSI Level one can work a death crime alone. Remember this is just a show and doesn't always follow what happens in real life.

Not I like LF and I do like Langston, I agree with most of you that he's had more screen time than anyone else; but he's the lead and I have to accept that. I don't have to like it, just have to accept it. My problem and anger really has to do with tptb that seem to have FORSAKEN the actors that have been there since the beginning. Especially Marg, George and Paul who we part of the original team.

Anyways, that's my thoughts and who knows what will happen next season. Maybe tptb will listen to the fans and things will change. After all, we will have Langston for the whole season instead of half of it and that could really be the reason why we had the Langston overload.

 

Simply put, Grissom was hot and Langston's not.

Nothing can be done to fix that.

 

Do you mean that in terms of popularity or physical attractiveness? If it's the latter, I would definitely beg to differ...

 

I mean in terms of physical attractiveness; Langston's just not good looking.

Not ugly, just very bland.

 

Huh. I guess to each his/her own. I think Ray is very attractive, and definitely more so than Grissom. FYI, Laurence Fishburne was in People Magazine's Hottest Guys issue.

 

I've heard zero and I mean ZERO women lust or drool over Laurence Fishburne, and we don't exactly have Perfect 10 or hotness threads about him either. Now do we?

People magazine is just being PC as usual. Christina Applegate, who is pretty, was chosen as MOST beautiful simply because she had a double mastectomy. It was People's way of encouraging us ladies.

 

well, both guys could be attractive in their own ways. WP's fanbase might be sometimes a bit more focused on his looks than LF's, though. probably b/c when WP was young, he was a real hottie. he still has the appeal now but it doesn't speak to everybody. LF's attractiveness comes a little more from his charisma but i guess some people might like him for his looks only too.

so i think the issue is very subjective and there is no true answer.

 

I like him, and think he's doing a marvelous job, and on his looks, he's got nice lips, and his own brand of charm..and is a sweetheart, and looked "hot" on the Harley, and how about Brass and Doc, David and Hodges are they handsome? what does his looks have to do with his acting? He is doing what the writers want him to do, and is superb~

 

^ hah, yeah, i really warmed up to him after i saw him on a motorcycle in the last episode. it was really cool. i finally got a glimpse of his personality and not just 'i'm an MD and a CSI rookie'. the bike and his love for jazz start to be the differentiating factors we all need from a lead.

 

I think I'd put LF & WP on the same level of attractiveness. Neither would probably make my top-100 list, but I don't consider either of them unattractive.

I think that because of Ray's previous experience as an M.E., as well as the teachings/seminars, it has allowed the writers to move his character's advancement along at a much more rapid pace than a normal CSI. About the only thing that Ray had been lacking at the begining that regular CSIs have is the experience at a scene. With his medical and teaching background, Ray wouldn't need to spend that extra time learning those aspects of the job. He'd only need time to learn the basic forensic tools and protocol - such as fingerprinting (which he worked on diligently at the beginning) and a few other things. The rest is usually just common sense and knowledge.

The writers have given Ray the medical knowledge background to use in solving crimes in the way that they gave Grissom the entomological background and knowledge. If you remember at the beginning of this series, all of the CSIs were specialized in different areas - Grissom: entomology; Catherine: blood spatter; Warrick: Audio/Visual; Sara: materials & elements; Nick: hair & fiber analysis. Putting them all together allowed them to become a great team. many of the stories in the first few seasons were geared around using bugs as a way to find evidence. A lot of the stories recently, with the addition of Ray, are being focused on using the medical evidence to find the killer.

As I see it now, what they're doing in having Ray with a medical background, they're bringing that area of forensics more out to the crime scene than just having it confined to those autopsy scenes in the morgue with Doc Robbins. In a way, now they're kind of giving Doc Robbins a partner and bringing those sometimes-boring morgue scenes to life.

 

I think when Billy Petersen announced his departure, TPTB went into a major panic attack because they were losing 'the voice' of CSI. At least in their view, it's how they saw CSI. I mean, when the show was being conceptualized. The Grissom character was based on a real life CSI as was the Catherine Willows character. So they had a basis to work with from the get go.

I find the Langston character has high-lighted the weaknesses of the writers in their character development. The last half of the season almost felt as if they were scrambling to try and make this character work. It hasn't, from what I see.

Now the blame is certainly not with LF whose a fine actor, but with the writers and the set up at this point. There were a few great episodes when the TEAM worked together, but then suddenly it seemed to fall apart.

Nick is Catherine's right hand, but all but vanished from the show and while it could have been explained because of GE's back problems, the writers could have found a way around the problems. They would have for Petersen, but since GE doesn't have that pull with the crew-they don't bother.

Langston is in interesting character but he was brought and the show now revolves arond him. I can't see this going on for long. I feel as if the writers have gone off the rails here with this character. I'm starting to resent him.

With all due respect. I'm pretty glad we don't have a thread as such here. WE have individual theads devoted for drooling over our favourite actor.

And as for your second sentance, what in God's name does have to do with this thread?:wtf: