Why Lindsay Must Go

Lovely points, everyone.

Now let's see...to rehash the discussion about the introduction of Lindsay's character: It would be better to have a cast of characters that is well-written and developed, even if that means that there are more men than women. When Aiden left, Hawkes was moving into the field, so technically they didn't need to bring in a new CSI at all--the numbers would have been the same. But the writers clearly thought that only having one woman on the show was a bad idea, hence bringing in Lindsay (a good point in principle, if only it was executed well on the show). The problem with that came when they didn't take time to really flesh out the character before the season began, and they seem to have tried to do so over the course of the season, which has led to Lindsay seeming inconsistent and sometimes downright baffling because the viewers never get a real sense of who she is and where she's coming from. /rehash

Anyway, the whole point of doing that was to come to this (talk about going around my arse to get to my nose ): Sometimes I wonder if perhaps the inconsistencies with the character have to do with the different writers--what I mean is, maybe they didn't have a very clear idea of who Lindsay was from the beginning (just a general, 'she's a nice girl from Montana and she has a dark secret'), so when it came time to write the episodes, each of the writers took the liberty of portraying her in whichever way they personally saw fit. That could explain some of the glaring discrepancies in Lindsay's character throughout the season (considering that there have been more than ten different writers this past season). In "Zoo York" we were told that she spouts off random bits of trivia when she's nervous, but I can't say she's done that at any other point in the season to qualify the statement (that I can recall)--true, she did rattle off some football statistics in "Super Men," but she didn't seem particularly nervous to me (and I thought the line was aimed more toward furthering the Danny/Lindsay dynamic than anything else considering Danny's follow-up line). That's certainly only one example of how the character hasn't stayed consistent, but you see what I'm getting at. It would be interesting to see how the different versions of Lindsay correspond to different writers. (And it's also interesting to note that Peter Lenkov co-wrote both "Zoo York" and "Super Men"--coincidence? Perhaps not. ) That doesn't excuse the fact that they should have had a better idea of who the character was going in, but it could at least explain what went wrong. (Then again, looking at it with regards to the writers could just prove that nobody had a frickin' clue what was going on most of the time. :lol Of course, I don't really know anything about how shows like this are written and what not, so...

I wouldn't have had such a huge problem with the changes in the character if I felt that they were leading to a more defined idea of who Lindsay is--instead, it's just going from one awkward superficial identity to another. Hopefully the writers will get together before season 3 and decide exactly who Lindsay is and how she will act. We know that they are capable of doing so because the other characters are well-developed (even though Danny has toned down a great deal from season 1, you still get a sense that he's fleshed-out), so I'd like to see them put their skills to work on Lindsay.

***

By the way, I just looked at the writers for the different S2 episodes on IMDB and I have to say that I don't really see a pattern there...nothing like putting a theory forward and then debunking it before anyone else has a chance to. :lol:

 

Granted it could be the differences in the writers but why just her? They don't seem to have those inconsistencies with the other characters. Lindsay is the only one hopping around all over the place. I just don't think they have found the right personality to fit her so they keep changing her. OMG, I just got that thought that she could be like this forever.

IMO, they should have left Hawkes as the ME and given him more screen time. Let him go out in the field more like Alexx does on Miami. OR they could have just let him move up to CSI and not hired Lindsay. Who cares if Stella would have been the only female CSI. If they wanted to add another female to the cast they could have gotten a female ME. That would have been better than hiring Lindsay. Just what made her stand out in Mac's mind for him to hire her instead of someone else?

 

In Zoo York, Stella said that it was he handling of a case in Montana and her blood spatter analysis I think that made him hire her. I fully agree a female ME would have been a better idea, even on Miami there is only one main female CSI, so I don't see why it would have been a problem in NY.

 

I actually like Lindsay.

OK, so she's not Aiden, but if she was I'd be worried 'cos each character should be different.

 

What I meant about the writers was more that they know who each of the other characters are and can portray them in a believable way, but when it comes to Lindsay they're all making it up as they go along. *shrug* It wasn't really a good theory, I'll admit (and I did prove myself wrong in the end ). :lol:

And I'm hoping that Lindsay doesn't stay the same way forever--they've had all of season 2 to beat around the bush, so now they need to have it figured out for season 3. Like I said before, I'd rather have a consistent character that I may or may not like rather than having her jump all over the place. I don't have to love her, but I shouldn't resent her just being present on the show. There are plenty of people who don't particularly like Mac (or Danny, of course, but the poor man seems to be the only one we pick on, so I'll give him a break ) for one reason or another--they think he's stiff or cold, that he doesn't seem to show emotion, etc.--but I can't say that I've ever seen anyone calling for the character to be chucked out the window.

I also wonder what it was that convinced Mac to hire a complete stranger from the other side of the country when there were surely qualified people in NYC that could have done the job just as well. It would have been nice if the writers had come up with a more believable way for Lindsay to come--like maybe she came to New York and became a CSI on another shift before being transferred to Mac's team when Aiden left. It's just an example, but you see what I'm saying.

 

'I think they did light-hearted and angry Lindsay to see what Anna's stronger points are, then they'lkl work from there. But like I said already, Lindsay has to get angry sometimes...

 

That's true, and nobody wants Lindsay to be like Aiden, but half of the time Lindsay from one episode is nothing like Lindsay from another episode. That's where a lot of the issues come into play.

But what is it that you like about the character? I'm always interested to hear a new interpretation of the character or see how someone views her from a different perspective.

Nobody expects that Lindsay should never be angry, so I'm not seeing where that statement is coming from (or why it's been repeated, actually). The problem is that, when Lindsay has acted 'angry' so far, it hasn't necessarily seemed believable or reasonable. I want to see a dynamic and multi-faceted character--she should be angry and excited, frustrated and light-hearted, sad and sometimes even irrational--this is what makes the character more realistic. I want to see different sides of the character's personality, and that definitely includes her being angry sometimes. It's probably fair to say that most people in this thread would rather see more light-hearted moments from Lindsay because they believe that Anna acts better in those scenes, but that comes down to Anna's acting ability more than Lindsay's character.

The idea that the writers were trying to find out Anna's strengths by putting Lindsay in different situations is a little bit ludicrous. They should have known what Anna is capable of before they hired her--the episode of the show that is on national television for the public to watch and judge is not the time for the writers to be experimenting with the actress. That sort of thing should happen long before the show is put on tv (like during the audition process). Can you see them putting in a seemingly-random (or unnecessary) scene just to see if Gary Sinise is good at acting angry? I can understand trying different things with the characters (for example, Flack has several moments in the latter part of season 2 where we can see him as a caring friend, which is a bit of a change from the tough-as-nails detective that he usually is), but wouldn't you think that the writers should be writing an episode to tell a story rather than to see if an actress can pull of a certain emotion?

 

What I don't understand is why the writers are having such a hard time with Lindsay. She can't be that complex. Nobody else on this entire show see-saws back and forth like Lindsay does. Maybe Anna just can't get into the Lindsay character. Maybe Anna's just not cut out for this role.

It's just scary to think that after a whole season they still don't know who Lindsay is, how she acts, etc. Lindsay could be likeable and believeable if the writers would just pick a personality and stick with it.

 

You're right, each character should be different, but the same character shouldn't be different from episode to episode. By the third episode of CSI: NY, we knew how most of the originals would react to a given situation, with a little leeway, and most of them have followed that closely. If Danny has to do something unpleasant, he'll whine. If Flack has to chase down a suspect, he'll do it, and he'll do it with a snarky and witty comment. But what'd happen if Lindsay is interoggating a suspect, and he says something she doesn't like? I doubt the writers even know the answer ... they've probably got a coin to flip.

"Alright, people. Heads she goes off the handle, tails she moons at Danny and if it balances on the edge we write her consistantly."

*collective laughs from the other writers*

 

all good points.
the writers do seem to have a hard time with her. or maybe they just dont know which way they want her character to develop yet. or something lol. i dunno, at times i catch a glimpse of things i like in her but its always just a glimpse :\

 

I don't see how learning her 'dark secret' is going to justify or suddenly make Lindsay a likeable character. Particularly in a cast that is full of dark pasts. I think there must be a section on the application form for CSIs...ie:

Do you have a Dark Past or Secret? A haunting tragedy in your history? Please circle all that apply in the list below:

A. Tragic death of family member.
B. Family member a member of a gang or has mob affiliations or both.
C. Difficulty relating to family member who is a member of the same profession.
D. Bad breakup with boyfriend resulting in death or assault or both.
E. Traumatic experience involving work that caused you to withdraw from others.
F. Traumatic shooting of a co-worker, not specific to same department.
G. Traumatic identifying of the burned corpse of a co-worker.
H. Have ever been involved in a bomb blast.
I. Have ever had to perform emergency triage on a co-worker invovled in a bomb blast.
J. Have ever had to perform emergency triage on a co-worker involved in a bomb blast while suffering flashbacks from a previous traumatic event possibly involving enemy action in a foreign country.

Oh, boy, could I go on.

The writers haven't given her a secret because between all of the CSI shows, there aren't any dark secrets left, they've all been covered. I think Lindsay would stand out more if she didn't have a dark secret and I don't see how giving her some tragic past is going to justify the character and make her more enjoyable to view.

The character is flawed and would have some hope if the actress were up to the task of smoothing those flaws over, but Anna Belknap isn't. The writers, imho, have tried to find something, anything, that makes Anna's portrayal of Lindsay believable or at least acceptable. I think the crush atrocity with Danny is a way of them trying to find some way she will fit in with the rest of the team. It isn't working. It isn't going to work so long as Anna Belknap is handicapping the entire cast with her presence.

The writers can't have her spend every minute with Mac hoping Gary Sinise's talents will rub off on Anna and make Lindsay likeable. They can't force a 'crush' with Danny because it pretty much pisses everybody off, even some Lindsay fans. Flack won't look at her. Stella patronises her and all of them look like they're simply tolerating her until they can get away from her.

Granted, the writing has been, at best, painful in S2. Particularly when compared with some of the brilliant stories of S1. We have downright implausible to blatantly stupid and most of it has involved Lindsay, again, probably in an attempt to make her more likeable.

TPTB and the writers need to stop. They need to get rid of Lindsay because I see no way for her to recover from S2. Anna doesn't have the talent and the writers don't have the passion for the character. Barring them getting rid of her, they need to shove her into the lab and leave her there. Minimalize her screen time. If she's a blood spatter expert, which I have yet to see, leave her in the lab reconstructing patterns from photos or evidence.

If they won't get rid of Lindsay then let less be more because I can promise, the less I see or hear Lindsay, the more I will like her.

 

Maybe that is Lindsay's character though, maybe she's supposed to be hard to figure out. I'm not saying that's always good, but maybe the writers want her to be inconsistent.

Just an idea...

 

There's a difference between hard to figure out and annoying as Hell. Lindsay isn't hard to figure out at all...she's two dimensional as a character at best. I don't watch her and wonder why she does something, I watch her and think "Well, that was uncalled for and really juvenile."

I can't think of any writer of talent who would deliberately write a character viewers are supposed to like with such inconsistency. It is not a way to encourage viewing, it turns people off.

 

I've noticed with Lindsey's character is that she also flirts with Mac as well as Danny. Some say she looks up to Mac as a father figure, I don't. I see her flirting with him and yet he either doesn't mind or just doesn't know.

Lindsey is just annoying. FULL STOP!!! Get rid of her and get another Aiden type character who doesn't plan to plant evidence. RIP Aiden.

--------------------------------

"What we gain by science is, after all, sadness." Thomas Hardy.

 

I will jump in because I agree with the sentiment of this thread - I actually like Lindsay but come to this thread because I find the opposing opinions interesting, and even find much common ground, which you know if you've read some of my earlier posts.

I also agree that Lindsay was better in lighter moments, or those times when she was just methodically working on a case. I think Anna connected with those moments because they were in line with how she was introduced.

I think the darker moments come across strangely because the writers at this point don't know why she's acting that way - they're making it up as they go along. It must be tough as an actor to get behind that and pull off a good performance if you're not sure what the motivation is - note that many think Carmine is not convincing in flirting scenes because it's not comfortable for him - the same could be said for Anna trying to deal with this storyline hooks coming out of nowhere.

I think the writers have not done right by this character - she needs to be given room to breath and develop. That is also another reason I think the screen time needs to be spread out more, the bigger reason so we can see more of those fine actors.

Rambling? Probably.