Yah, but George also said that he'd like to see Nick take "control of the lab". He was covering all bases! My personal feelings, the detectives have a lousy reputation on this show - they come and go without warning! Maybe I'm just ready to give up on CSI! jafox, I'm sorry you think I made a personal attack against Sara, it was meant to proove the point that CSI is not "real" world and most likely isn't going to be exactly what we all want it to be. (That's why I double and even triple checked to make sure I used character names.) Kasey, I guess since CSI isn't real she could have been working that case without working at the lab in season 9 (like usual they never did tell us if she was or wasn't). In real life she would have had to been at least a consultant to make it legal because she would probably be needed to go to court. Susan
OH Blackflag you mean the Adler case in The Happy Place. Yeah I think it was just professional courtesy (and a wild use of creative license) that she was seemingly involved but not technically involved in that case... Yeah see from the beginning with the CSI's interrogating suspects and wearing high heals, I knew that a lot of creative license would have to be used to make it more suspenseful because let's face it picking up fibers by the thousands is not all that exciting to watch...
I think every character on this show would have been fired at some point. Warrick should have never made it out of the Pilot, probably Grissom as well. I get irritated when people try to rationalize this show against reality (In a Dark, Dark House for example). It hasn't been based in reality ever. Any real cop or CSI will tell you that. Yes, and it's gotten so much worse since S10. Look at how many times have they thrown Brass under the bus.
To be honest I think the main problem I have with the show and some of the aforementioned scenarios is inconsistency. I've never had an issue with the CSIs interviewing suspects because they've done it since the beginning. Likewise, the seven second DNA tests, the fact they solve a crime within a day, that's been there since the pilot. I have to say I partly agree with those complaining about the CSIs chasing around suspects, mainly because they made it perfectly clear (particularly with Sara in "Play with Fire") that cops clear the scene, cops chase the suspects and the CSIs wait for the Code 4. "In a Dark, Dark House" (as well as the preceding episode) really had me fuming because it went against what the show had stood for for the past eleven seasons. Follow the evidence. Yet most of the characters seemed to either spin the interpretation in favour of Ray or plainly alter it. It's not the realism I have an issue with, it's the fact it's just plain out of character for the show. Compare it with "For Gedda", similar scenario, yet there's still a lot of doubt from the rest of the team over Warrick and they do their job properly. So yes, I can accept the show is unrealistic, if I'd want realism I'd watch a documentary, but I think that sometimes the show really needs to keep to its ground rules. (There's no doubt they do know them, see some of the first few Season 12 episodes!) My personal view on Nick, if they want to make him a cop, keep him the way he is. If they want him to keep as a CSI, ditch the chasing suspects and actually have him in the lab doing some evidence processing, because I notice that Sara, Greg, Finn and Morgan do FAR more of that.
As you said, in 'For Warrick' the CSIs only followed the evidence but it was Grissom's time ! ^^ In 'In a Dark, Dark House' Catherine was a the head of the team and she never managed to run it well. In that episode Sara (Mrs Grissom) was the only one to follow the evidence, I think Grissom would be proud of her... I think DB makes a goog job as a supervisor, he has experience and authority to calm the things down (To me, Langston years were just a sign of big mess in the team)
Is Nick adopting the dog part of the storyline? If so it'll give him something outside of the job to help him cope.:thumbsup:
Yes, he's adopting him as part of the storyline. There are some other spoilers in that article (in the spoiler thread) as well about Warrick's family and some off screen stuff about George.
Yes, Nick acting like a cop again. Can we get over it, please? Some of you don't like, some of us does. Oh well. This is not 100% based on reality. First of all, most sheriff offices, a specially trained cop or detective actually does the CSI stuff. They do not hire civilians to do this. So really, not that much out of character for our CSIs. Technically, no they shouldn't be doing it, because they are actual hired to the CSI work. Second, CSI's do not process evidence anywhere in the US. Only lab people do, they've being doing that wrong since the pilot. CSI's collect evidence and that's as far as they go. George likes the action that Nick does and the writers accommodate that. Let's face it, all of us aren't happy where our favorite characters have gone. They've been pushed to the background where they don't belong. And I include Sara, Greg, Brass in this. I know fans of other characters want stuff for their characters. Ever think that many the actors aren't as vocal to what the want with their characters as George is? With his father being a DA, he wants to make sure the integrity of Nick's character is there, as well as Nick taking more action. No matter what, it's in character for him, since he was a cop at one time. Should he being doing this stuff as a CSI? No, but then Sara shouldn't do non-CSI stuff, Greg shouldn't doing non-CSI stuff, etc. etc. Every character has done something that could have gotten them fired. Everyone of them. Now let me ask you something. If the show actually followed reality, would you watch it? I mean are you going to wait weeks for the DNA result? Wait months, if not years, for them to solve the case? I doubt it. I guess I find it funny that people argue about the reality of the show (me included), when it's just a TV SHOW. And I think it's high time tptb remember what characters have been there since the beginning and they all could have carried this show. They're the reasons we keep watching.
I think the problem is that it's just inconsistent with how the show played out during the early years. Grissom & co. would always say to a victim's family that "we're not cops, we're scientists. We follow the evidence." And that's how Anthony Zuiker sold the show; as going UNDERNEATH the yellow tape as opposed to cops following a hunch. They would also go up to suspects or locations and address themselves as "Las Vegas Crime Lab" and now it's "LVPD." I see both sides to the argument. It's definitely frustrating, because as some people do tune in for a certain actor or character, there are also fans who tune in for great stories and don't follow the online discussion forums or visit fan sites for their celeb. They just want consistency.
http://instagram.com/p/PaG_NXk86R CSI 13.05 "Once Bitten" Two hookers are hauled into the line up room with five other prostitutes and asked to deposit their scent on a metal pipe.
A recent CSIFiles article said that Gary will not be in the episode. Too bad though, it would have been nice to see Warrick again. I think its cool Nick adopts a dog.