It was alright. I think they tried way too hard to make all the characters extremely quirky other than Arquette.
If we talk about crimes and cases, then we have a lot of were to take from the computers world, they are case of strange porn, snuff, child porn, online kills or webcam shows, dead rings, drugs, credit cards, bitcoins, sex slaves, people that wants dead bodys or even meat, online crimes happen every day. The problem for me is that the show is set in the U.S and for me this is really hard to believe, that in the US would happen something like this, when even the old child porn sites are down, every week a new CP page came out and every week an old page came down, so for me Europe and Asia are the right point to begin a show like this. The other problem is that they have to show in the detectives some personality, because in the original seasons of CSI, even Grissom was piss off when the FBI take the case, because he do all the job and the FBI take the credits, it will be nice to show that when Zuiker is the same fricking writer. And i am praying for take down so many technology that doesnt exits in real life, like CSI: New York and Miami did and in both case it was crap, because there is nothing worst that a CGI morgue or even a lot of crappy tech that find criminals from knowhere.
Funny line from The Hollywood Reporter: "The series is based on the work of cyber psychologist Mary Aiken. But just because the show is inspired by real life events doesn’t make it any less predictable. By now the formula is established: Find a known actor to headline your series (in this case, Arquette), throw in a song by The Who (“I Can See for Miles”) and demonstrate a fondness for slow motion and dramatic close-ups. Just the name CSI: Cyber sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit. What’s next? CSI: Whole Foods?" :guffaw: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/csi-cyber-tv-review-778659
It was okay, but not particularly gripping. We've seen the same characters having the same jobs in so many shows already that it didn't feel like the first episode of a new series but the 20th of any procedural out there. I'm not very fond of the main lead, although I can't pinpoint why yet. 5/10
Patricia Arquette was good (not her best role though), but the show was weak... If former writers really want to write for CSI they should return to the original show, not creating a useless show.. I'm not expecting this show to be renewed...
That's so true. I think they just put too much into that very first episode, and I hope, as I find the show rather promising, that they are going to slow down a bit and give the characters some proper room to evolve and the plot to be less rushed. I also think that some lines, especially those for Avery, should be rewritten. As much as I like PA, and as much as her character is supposed to keep a cool head, I find her rather too cool. She reminds me of a female Aaron Hotchner The thing is that when you create a show with CSI, there is the bossy FBI that is disliked by everyone, but if you create a show with the FBI, local police and CSI are both a bunch of idiots.
It's the first time I see her. I should probably watch some of her previous work though, as having seen Ted Danson and Elisabeth Shue before made it easier to get used to the characters. What do you think I should start with?
She had a role on HBO's Boardwalk Empire, but I never watched that show. I did watch her on Medium, which was excellent. She's done other movies as well, one I can remember seeing was Stigmata, with Gabriel Byrne. Check out all her credits here. It's only been one episode, so hopefully for everyone that wasn't impressed, the storylines/writing/character interaction will improve.
Guess the writers had to go back to an old episode of the original CSI- Season 4, Turn of the screws" for their storyline.
For me second episode was better than series premiere. Was more action and not CSI thing and I like it very much. And ratings for now shows it not drop much.