CSI: NY Season 6 Spoiler Discussion - Bright Lights, Big City

This is the first season I remember them only working one case per episode on a regular basis. I wonder if they will return to two cases per show now that Danny's injury and Flack's grief seem to have been resolved. It appeared that those two storylines took the place of the "B case" for the first few shows and have just recently been wrapped up.

If the one case scenario is due to budget cuts, I think it pretty ironic that just a year or so ago Mac was fighting to keep people in spite of budget cuts and now he has more people than he can keep busy. I really liked the two cases per episode and hope they bring that back.

Right now it appears that Anna, Robert, and A.J. are getting the brunt of the budget cuts while the rest of the team is in every episode. This I can understand since Melina, Carmine, Hill, Eddie, and Gary all have a year seniority. In a perfect world I would love to see each actor in the series be willing to step out in order to make ends meet but realistically I don't expect that to happen.

 

Thing is, Lindsay's always been a background character. That's what she was brought in as, secondary female, etc, etc, with comparatively less screentime than Stella, Mac, Danny, Flack (Hawkes, a little more debatable, but yeah), sometimes even less than Sid and/or Adam in some episodes. That hasn't changed.

In RealLife, I'd imagine AB is still making on average as much as she ever has, because it's not like her screentime this year is radically different than what it has been in previous years.

In CSI-NY-Life, Lindsay is spending as much time on the screen itself as she ever has. She goes missing for entire eps (but strictly from the story, it's not like that's unusual from past years), then spends about ten minutes/4-5 scenes onscreen in the episodes she appears in. None of this is different.

(And yeah, she got a lot more exposure back when they were still doing the two-case episodes S2-4, but that's something that's affected most of the cast, not just Lindsay.)

It's not like she's been demoted; she's still a CSI. (As is Adam at this point, I thought -- didn't Mac mention way back in "Turbulence" that Adam had put in a request for more field work? Along with him processing the elevator in "Epilogue", not to mention Haylen actually telling him she wanted his job -- I'm assuming she wasn't just talking about lab-rat, since she probably wouldn't have bothered collecting that print from the elevator if that's all she wanted. Sorry, digressing.)

She's actually spent more time outside the lab this season than she did during the second-half of last season (go figure, as AB's not pregnant). She interacts the same way she ever has with the other characters, it doesn't seem as though any of them value or esteem her less than they ever have. This is why I'm really not seeing how she's become less important, as a member of the team, or as a member of the cast.

Yeah, I'll totally agree that what they actually have Lindsay doing when she's onscreen has fallen pretty flat lately, in that she doesn't have a story anymore. Which is beyond frustrating, mostly in light of certain aspects of her behaviour this season. But...well, okay, that's a pretty old argument :lol: I'd say, which still hasn't moved me from my usual position: that I don't think a story (or lack thereof) is what contributes to a character's importance.

ETA: Sorry, forgot to add -- yeah, it's completely true that Grey's and the behaviour of its reps probably can't easily be compared to that of CSI:NY, and we'll probably never know for sure either what "no comment" was supposed to mean, or who's idea it was for AB to appear in fewer eps this season.

And I also wish they'd start bringing a "B" case to the episodes again. Not only would more characters get a lot more exposure, but when there were two cases per ep, it was pretty much a guarantee that one of the cases would grip me, even if the other didn't not so much (mentioning this because I'm re-watching S6 episodes, and some of them are dragging more than they did when I first watched them; and it occurs to me that if you find the case in the ep boring, you're pretty much stuck until the next one).

On Anna, AJ and Robert getting the brunt of the budget cuts as opposed to Gary et al...seniority never once occurred to me, but that makes sense, and would lend truth to all that talk we were hearing about the contract negotiations for the shows this past summer.

 

I think the whole 'importance' thing is very subjective again, like you guys said. To me, Lindsay is the most important character on the show, together with Danny, and not only because I ship them but because to me they're just the most interesting characters since I started watching the show. I have to say it's getting on my nerves a lot when Lindsay isn't in some of the episodes (like for some of you it's annoying when Adam or Sid are missing - btw, didn't Sid appear in every single episode so far since he joined in season 2? I can't think of any single episode he's not been in since he joined, he was even in Snow Day). But like Maya said, there have been episode in which she has been in for like 5 minutes, same happened to Danny (in Admission), Hawkes and most of the others. And that has annoyed me as well. :lol: I still hope for the two case episodes to return ever since they stopped them. I have no idea if they can give them back to us with budget cuts and all that stuff (don't really know that much about tv business). But those really gave every character a chance and I miss them. So far there are also no spoilers for any two case episodes, right?

I agree.

 

I agree with those who say comparing Anna's screen time this season with seasons where she had maternity leave and where she was introduced as a character is comparing apples to oranges. With maternity leave she HAD to have the time off and thus her screen time was less. When she was introduced as a character they needed time to write the old character out and thus her screen time was less. This season there is no reason that we are aware of (obviously there could be a reason she absolutely HAD to cut her time on the show) she would HAVE to be away from the show. The fact that she's a supporting character doesn't really have anything to do with comparing her screen time from season to season.

 

Prefacing this by mentioning how I know extremely little about acting contracts , and obviously even less about CSI:NY’s actor contracts, so I’m speaking from my most general knowledge of contracts. But it’s not like a job where you’re just told your hours are being reduced, it’s a mutual agreement from both parties, studio/producers and actors. If one side doesn’t agree or completely loses out, the contract’s pretty much useless; hence negotiations.

That’s why I keep bringing up AB’s previous absences. Because if the terms of her contract stated that she’s to make an appearance in every single episode, and those were the unchanged terms she’d been working under for the past five years (like the original five regulars have been), then I’d see S6 as a reduction of hours. It’d also be a breach of the contract, if negotiations hadn’t been scheduled – like they were for the original five, I think? – and unless they had something big planned for their off-time (this is why I mentioned Heigl and her movie career), it’s not a reduction I can see many regular-status actors agreeing to. Which is why I don’t think the original five NY regulars were ever going to be the ones to pull the disappearing acts.

But from what I’ve seen, AB’s contract seems to have been restructured and negotiated on almost a yearly basis (missing two eps in S2, four in S3, five in S5). And yes, I know there’ve been unavoidable reasons for that, I’m not saying there haven’t been, but it does mean that the number of episodic appearances AB’s required to make has always been fairly fluid, especially compared to that of the other original regulars. In a budget crisis, it makes perfect sense to use that fluidity without reducing anything or making a statement about an actor's worth to the show. AB would still have had to agree – with two kids under toddler age, I’m thinking she wasn’t exactly griping about the extra free time, but that’s what’d make the episode cuts a mutual decision.

 

Technically speaking a 'demotion' is a change to job title or status, clearly CBS has stated that's not the case here so I don't see how 'demotion' is a fact at all. The only fact is that Anna's hours have been reduced, or at least if her overall hours are the same then her number of episodic appearances have been reduced. As you point out none of us know whether that's through negotiation, her choice or if it's been enforced. Those who don't like her may choose to see it as enforced, while those who like her may choose to see it as her decision. It's likely we'll never know for sure.

 

Technically speaking to "demote" also means "to relegate to a less important position." (source: Merrian-Webster OnLine) Having your episodes cut definitely qualifies as having a "less important position" than the actors who have not had their episodes cut. So while she's still a "series regular" it's a fact she's been "demoted."

 

I'm well aware of the definition of the term to 'demote'. I'm not disputing the definition. But, what is in dispute is the circumstances surrounding Anna's reduced number of episodes. If you choose to see it as a result of her lack of value as a character and actor then of course you will see it as a demotion. Just the same as if you think Anna is fabulous then you'll likely view this as being entirely her choice because of the pressures of having a young family. None of that is fact though, it's all speculation at this point and it's all based on personal bias. The only fact is that she's in less episodes but is still a series regular.

I fail to see it as a demotion, in the same way that I wouldn't view a part timer as being lesser than a full timer doing the same job. I'm aware that some people do see part timers as being of less value - hence why there are laws protecting them against such descrimination (at least, there are in the UK).

 

Yes, I know maternity leave is a legal right, and the absences probably weren't planned for at the very beginning of the seasons (well, S5 -- Lindsay's S3 storyline was planned around AB's pregnancy from the second episode, so I'm less sure of that). That doesn't mean some of the terms of her contract wouldn't have had to be restructured once she told TPTB that she was pregnant, since presumably they did not pay her for the episodes she didn't appear in. Once they were, it ultimately would have meant she was contracted for fewer episodes, both times.

If they did pay her for the episodes she didn't appear in, that is when a maternity leave becomes different from being contracted for fewer episodes (and by extension, the latter can actually be seen as a demotion). But I'm guessing it's unlikely they did. Many companies do compensate their employees with paid maternity leave, but not all by any stretch of the imagination. I really don't know how it works in the acting business, since I don't know whether the fact that most (primetime/tv) actors already make a lot would influence things.

No one's disputing that the studio has more power than an actor. But the actor does have the right to refuse a contract s/he's not comfortable with or doesn't think is fair. If they didn't, Adam R./Eric Delko wouldn't have been able to go anywhere; why the same law wouldn't apply to AB is beyond me. A contract's a contract -- either party may not be completely happy with its terms, but it requires the consent of both of them to have any sort of meaning. Changing the terms of one without the actor's consent is likely asking for a legal field day, even for the most powerful studios. Characters get killed off because the actor's contract is ending, btw.

In all fairness, I do know that we're all just speculating here, since we have very few facts, about TPTB, Anna, her contract or that of any of the others. But the fact I'm seeing here is that we have five other regular-status and thus-paid actors/actress who've been so from the very beginning and have appeared in every episode they've been contracted for, vs. a likewise-regular actress who may or may not have had the terms of her contract and/or her pay changed when she was on previous legitimate absences.

All we really, concretely know is that the original five regulars have been in every single episode and are still in every single episode, and that AB hasn't and still isn't now.

The idea that she's been "demoted" is just as speculative as the idea that she's having a massive family crisis at home and needs the time off.

 

Paid maternity leave is the norm in a lot of countries, but from my understanding, the United States isn't one of them. There are a few US companies that do extend it to their employees, but I wouldn't exactly bet on CBS being one of them...*

Yeah, it might have been discrimination to renegotiate AB's contract based on her maternity leave -- that's an issue that's been debated over and over by tons of different organizations -- but it's entirely likely that's what they did. They're required to give her maternity leave flat-out; paid or unpaid is usually employer choice, though, not law.

Oh, I know, I just meant that however the characters leave the show, they're leaving because the actor is cutting ties with the show's producers; hence, ending the contract between them. It's open season on whatever the producers decide to do with the actor's character once they're leaving, but the show doesn't keep the actor under a legally binding agreement after they've left.

I still see it as one and the same, since I sincerely doubt she was paid through any of her leaves, and so far at least she's been gone less than she's been in past seasons -- but fair enough, to each their own.

* I've only ever studied US labour law from a Canadian perspective, just warning everyone now -- so if I'm wrong, anyone from the States please let me know :lol:

 

Finally another topic, this Anna thing has been going on way to long, the last spoliers i read were for episode 15, I haven't read any yet for episode 16. But I can't wait for the show to come back i miss my weekly dose of CSI when its in reruns. Does anyone know the when furture episode will air I know episode 12 airs on Jan. 13, but does episode 13 air the following week (Jan. 20)??

 

Don't know about episode 13 but I too am ready for a new episode. Too bad we have to wait until the 13th to get it. I just looked at the description in the episode guide and it sounds as if they are going to pit Flack (or another detective) against the CSI's. Haven't they done enough of this already? There was the case with Truby and then the case with his old mentor and he and Mac clashed both times. This one sounds like evidence tampering, which isn't new. I hope there is more to it than I am reading.

ETA: Went and read the synopsis and it sounds good. I don't think it's about Flack this time...whew...