Character Development/Screentime Discussion

[AFIS]

I kind of disagree with this. I feel like I know Greg pretty well. I may not know who he is dating, or where he lives, but I think I know his basic character and what motivates him. He's likable, a little off beat, very smart (although I think the writers have often forgotten this); he likes mystery and is intrigued by Vegas history; he became bored with just being in the lab, and wanted the challenge of being out in the field (but I don't think he dislikes being a lab rat at times if it helps in solving a case). He wasn't a jock (lol), and enjoys music and the company of his friends, especially Sara. We know his background, really as much as any of the characters. I love how he gets excited when he knows things that others don't, and when he contributes something in solving a case, even a little detail. And, he takes pride in the fact that he has advanced to a level 3 CSI, just as Nick is proud of his Asst. Supervisor position.
I think when Sara left, we saw a little more maturity in him; he was actually miffed at Grissom (his mentor who usually intimidated him), and he was not afraid to show it (in You Kill Me).
I think often times the lines get blurred regarding character development, a story arc, a character-centric episode, and overall screentime; screentime being more of a contractural thing.
All that said, Greg is due for a character-centric episode, and a good story arc, but I like his character development so far. I think it's seemed very realistic.

I agree with this. As far as knowing the character's personality and personal likes and dislikes, enough has been said and shown through the years to extrapolate a fairly decent and well rounded character. Personally, I like how they didn't spell out his character development from lab rat to CSI. You can see the change from season to season, and the way it's more subdued actually makes it more realistic.

But fans shouldn't have to extrapolate information about a character to understand the character in question. We all have our own ideas about what exactly makes Greg who he is and that's the problem. The writers don't know Greg enough to write anything specific about him and that's exactly what he needs. That doesn't mean he should be characterized heavyhandedly just that fans shouldn't have to infer what a character believes/is motivated by. So far characterizing Greggo is done by the fans when it should be done by the writers.

What I'm trying to say is that in the earlier seasons being the 'lead' meant nothing since it was an ensemble- Greg and Sara would get as much time as Gil and Cath- and the only reason I believe that Ray is getting special treatment is because he's a big star (and I use that term loosely since me and many of my friends remember him as nothing more than Morpheus)

Even in ensemble shows, there is a leading force on the show. In theory, that leading force is supposed to be the person you identify with the show the most. 30 Rock has Tina Fey, Friends had Jennifer Aniston, Law and Order had Sam Waterston. Even CSI had BP. It's not that LF is getting special treatment it's just that he's being established as the new leading force of CSI. It may seem like he's getting unfair treatment by getting more storylines but he did come in at a bad time. If Langston had come in at season one like Grissom did he would have had more time to establish who he is but Langston didn't so...the writers have to play catch-up.

 

[PraetorCorvinus]

But fans shouldn't have to extrapolate information about a character to understand the character in question. We all have our own ideas about what exactly makes Greg who he is and that's the problem. The writers don't know Greg enough to write anything specific about him and that's exactly what he needs. That doesn't mean he should be characterized heavyhandedly just that fans shouldn't have to infer what a character believes/is motivated by. So far characterizing Greggo is done by the fans when it should be done by the writers.

I disagree. Considering how the character is almost universally described the same way in various appreciation threads and fanfiction, it appears that the fans have all seen the same elements as presented by the writers. Any tangents taken I see are the same types that are taken with all the characters.

As far as the writers are concerned, do we know what they are thinking? Just because we might disagree with the amount of time we see a character doesn't mean the writers don't know anything about him. There is a difference between screen time and character development. For me, the character has has a pretty clear development. Maybe not much time (which is my one major complaint - one that I've stated too much), but his characterization seems to be fine. And I want to be clear that I not talking about personal facts or what he does in his off hours (those fit into my screen time complaint). I'm just referring to Greg's personality.

I do agree that he needs more development. I'm just sayin that up to now Greg's been pretty concise.

 

[Desertwind]

Greg will never ever be a leader on this show. Greg is great, but he's not in a supervisors role. He gets side-tracked to easily and I can't imagine him giving orders or being the boss, in any capacity. He's great where he is, as a good CSI, who is smart and knows how to get the job done and works well with his co-workers. But some people are meant to be leaders, and some aren't.. my opinionAnd on the constant reference to "Morpheus" this man has done over 60 movies, and that's justs one of them..P-L-E-A-S-E, he's nothing like that character on CSI~

 

[PraetorCorvinus]

Greg will never ever be a leader on this show. Greg is great, but he's not in a supervisors role. He gets side-tracked to easily and I can't imagine him giving orders or being the boss, in any capacity. He's great where he is, as a good CSI, who is smart and knows how to get the job done and works well with his co-workers. But some people are meant to be leaders, and some aren't.. my opinionAnd on the constant reference to "Morpheus" this man has done over 60 movies, and that's justs one of them..P-L-E-A-S-E, he's nothing like that character on CSI~

I don't think anyone said that Greg was going to be the leader. And your comment about him "never ever being a leader" seems a little harsh. We haven't seen him in that position at all. That doesn't mean he's no good at it. We simply don't know.

And some people just identify certain actors with certain characters. I don't see Langston as Morpheus. I do recognize Fishburne as him though. The same way I'll always see Marg as connected with the movie "Erin Brokovich" I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's just a call back to another memorable character.

 

[DragonFriend95]

I said this in another thread, but I don't think it's fair to say that Greg couldn't be a leader when we haven't seen him in any sort of leadership role. I'm not saying that he is fully capable of being a leader (though I would like it if he was :lol but until we're given solid proof (which I'm starting to doubt seeing how tptb have been treating Greg these past few years) that say he is/isn't a good leader it's pretty much speculation.

Maybe tptb could put Greg in a situation where he was in charge (maybe working on a case with Ray seeing how Greg's a higher rank) but I've got a nasty feeling that they won't bother :shifty:

Oh, and I'm aware of LF's many works seeing as I've seen at least a dozen of the films he's been in, but since the actor's never appealed to me Morpheus is the only role of his that I can remember :lol:

EDIT: Damn the time it takes my computer to upload post. Basically what Praetor said :lol:

 

[Dizzney]

Maybe tptb could put Greg in a situation where he was in charge (maybe working on a case with Ray seeing how Greg's a higher rank) but I've got a nasty feeling that they won't bother :shifty:

Knowing TPTB though, they would make Greg look stupid just to make Ray look all that much better because that seems to be what they do most of the time with Ray anyway.

 

[DragonFriend95]

Maybe tptb could put Greg in a situation where he was in charge (maybe working on a case with Ray seeing how Greg's a higher rank) but I've got a nasty feeling that they won't bother :shifty:

Knowing TPTB though, they would make Greg look stupid just to make Ray look all that much better because that seems to be what they do most of the time with Ray anyway.

Sad, but IMO true. I can clearly remember in Death and the Maiden when Ray was the one telling Greg what to do (first example off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's more )

 

[Raynn]

Sad, but IMO true. I can clearly remember in Death and the Maiden when Ray was the one telling Greg what to do (first example off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's more )

In Death and the Maiden, when they were processing the shop, it didn't seem that bad. Greg asked if he could help with the back, since he'd finished in front, and Ray just pointed out which part still needed to be done.

A similar thing happened with Nick in Blood Moon, when Ray "told" Nick to check the body's other wrist. I don't think he was trying to be bossy, but the way that he says things sometimes makes it sound more like a direction than a request.

I do believe that Greg has matured a lot over the years, and I think that he does have good leadership qualities - but as the junior member of the team (youngest, and least experienced CSI besides Ray), he hasn't had as much chance to show them.

 

[AFIS]

But fans shouldn't have to extrapolate information about a character to understand the character in question. We all have our own ideas about what exactly makes Greg who he is and that's the problem. The writers don't know Greg enough to write anything specific about him and that's exactly what he needs. That doesn't mean he should be characterized heavyhandedly just that fans shouldn't have to infer what a character believes/is motivated by. So far characterizing Greggo is done by the fans when it should be done by the writers.

I disagree. Considering how the character is almost universally described the same way in various appreciation threads and fanfiction, it appears that the fans have all seen the same elements as presented by the writers. Any tangents taken I see are the same types that are taken with all the characters.

As far as the writers are concerned, do we know what they are thinking? Just because we might disagree with the amount of time we see a character doesn't mean the writers don't know anything about him. There is a difference between screen time and character development. For me, the character has has a pretty clear development. Maybe not much time (which is my one major complaint - one that I've stated too much), but his characterization seems to be fine. And I want to be clear that I not talking about personal facts or what he does in his off hours (those fit into my screen time complaint). I'm just referring to Greg's personality.

I do agree that he needs more development. I'm just sayin that up to now Greg's been pretty concise.

But screentime and characterization go hand and hand. Without screentime a character will not have enough time to develop adequately. Without character development the character will fade into the shadows and lose opportunities to screentime.

Fans are so used to assuming with Greg that I think they've lost what the real meaning of being a character is. Greg currently isn't a character. He's a shoddy put together Greg. A character has backstory, motivations, and beliefs. Greg's backstory is unknown mostly, his motivations are vague at most, and his beliefs are equally as vague as his motivations.

I just wish that tptb could sit down and figure out who is Greg instead of throwing out random tidbits like, "Greg likes to collect coins," or "Greg went to Stanford," because the tidbits aren't good enough anymore. Greg is in every episode but still gets developed like he's only in six or seven of them. Is that really adequate characterization?

 

[Gremine]

Hmmm... Count me in who thinks screentime and character development is not totally connected. I am looking at the big picture and for example thinking about Grissom now(correct me if i forget something). His screentime was ok but when i think about his development, his biggest difference was his relationship with Sara and it took six seasons to get there. Just trying to say sometimes we learn about a character in five minutes more than we learn in five seasons. If we see a new side of a character that's a development sort of. The main propblem is the developments are happening too slow for a tv show i think. In the begining i watched the show for the mystery,crime,... but after sometime it is not enough. The characters became more important, because without them the show is like a documantary about murders. If i want to see a documantary i can watch Discovery or National G. channel... So they should focus the characters we already have more i think. I am definetely not saying CSI should be a character show totally ,no way! Just saying they have so many materials but they keep writing new characters and they dump! Then don't write, focus what you have... Like Greg hehehe... Actually i guess i am ok how they are portraying him: a young man slowly getting mature and professional bla bla bla but like i said before it is happening TOO slow even for a tv show. And when he was stuck in the lab alot it seems he is one step back.That's my problem. If i think deeper about the other characters maybe i will get the same conclusion who knows? That's what i think as a Greg fan now.

Also for the record i think the most developed character was Warrick. He was alive in the begining , he died in the end! Bad joke i know i know.

 

[waiting4summer]

In my opinion, Peterson's character helped develop the other characters. He could always pose a question or put out a comment that made the others respond in ways that let us know details about their lives or thought processes. Grissom didn't always need to tell the viewers something, it was just evident by his facial expressions or body language.

 

[byline]

In my opinion, Peterson's character helped develop the other characters. He could always pose a question or put out a comment that made the others respond in ways that let us know details about their lives or thought processes. Grissom didn't always need to tell the viewers something, it was just evident by his facial expressions or body language.

Very good point. Grissom was often a sounding board for the other characters, and to some extent I think that's part of what is missing now (or, at least, in a centralized way).

 

[AFIS]

In my opinion, Peterson's character helped develop the other characters. He could always pose a question or put out a comment that made the others respond in ways that let us know details about their lives or thought processes. Grissom didn't always need to tell the viewers something, it was just evident by his facial expressions or body language.

I haven't even though about it like that, waiting4summer. Grissom did have that ability to gauge the other characters without even saying any dialogue but I don't really feel like that's a problem. WP's various talents with Grissom will be missed but now's the time, in the words of Tim Gunn, to make it work. It's time to move on and focus on how to improve the present and not make a trip down memory lane. WP brought things to Grissom's character that only Grissom was able to do properly, those things were extras that WP gave to the character. Maybe in a couple of years, LF will develop something that only Langston can do but there's no use bringing up things that can't be replicated by the other characters.

 

[byline]

In my opinion, Peterson's character helped develop the other characters. He could always pose a question or put out a comment that made the others respond in ways that let us know details about their lives or thought processes. Grissom didn't always need to tell the viewers something, it was just evident by his facial expressions or body language.

I haven't even though about it like that, waiting4summer. Grissom did have that ability to gauge the other characters without even saying any dialogue but I don't really feel like that's a problem. WP's various talents with Grissom will be missed but now's the time, in the words of Tim Gunn, to make it work. It's time to move on and focus on how to improve the present and not make a trip down memory lane. WP brought things to Grissom's character that only Grissom was able to do properly, those things were extras that WP gave to the character. Maybe in a couple of years, LF will develop something that only Langston can do but there's no use bringing up things that can't be replicated by the other characters.

True, but I do think it's worth examining what worked, and why, and I think waiting4summer pointed something out that may be a pretty crucial point. So much of what made Grissom work was due to Petersen's extraordinary acting ability, which made a quiet character intense yet personable (even in his more withdrawn state). And I think a lot of that was established within the ensemble in its very first season. If you think about it, all the characters were personality types that you could check off on a list, and fit those pieces together to create the entire puzzle. Now, it seems that the show is going through a bit of an identity crisis, trying to figure out how to recreate the original puzzle, but with new pieces.

I do hope that they will be able to work it out, because as I said in another thread, even a "CSI" without Petersen is vastly better than most of what constitutes network television these days.

I wish they had retained more of Ray's original professorial/"childlike discovery" personality. That was a quiet character similar in many ways to -- yet also quite different from -- Grissom. Now they seem to be pushing him into a bit more of an "expert" mode, and so it's another major shift in a character who seems to have morphed (no pun intended) quite a bit since his introduction. But I also think that viewers found his professorial incarnation to be boring, so the powers that be felt they had to beef him up, add conflict and make him more exciting (but in a rather conventional way)I think that's where the "push" many are complaining about is coming from.

 

[Desertwind]

I feel the opposite I think that LF's as Dr. Ray extrodinary acting has brought the show to a new fresher higher level. He kicks a.. on the delivery of his dialogue, his timing so precise. And his ability to bond and mesh with the whole team is beguiling. There's no innner turmoil nor feuding amonst the team as their was when Grissom was the lead. He had zero social skills. Ray has astonishing social skills. What's so remarkable is how his character has learned so fast and the chemistry with the team is intoxciating. There's so much more respect between the team now then prior~ my views!