Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A show like this is a bit odd, in terms of sci-fi vs realism. Because it is based on real-world stuff (there's usually at least a few articles to find online that are relevant to any plot, however far-fetched it may seem), but they obviously take liberties to make it bigger and more exciting. The other CSIs did the same thing, with some of their technology, but this is the ~CYBER~ version, so it seems more out-there. And because people are so into computers and whatnot, any and all mistakes/exaggerations are received with a lot of annoyance and sometimes even anger from the online/hacker community.So if there's enough of sci-fi-ish elements in the show I might be sold for it.
I always kind of feel like I have to defend the cast of this show because people tend to think it's pretty odd! Patricia Arquette is obviously talented, but sometimes she does seem like an odd fit for a tech-based version of CSI. James Van Der Beek is always going to be Dawson Leery to a lot of people, no matter what else he does or how he proves that he's a good actor, so I think a lot of people don't take him seriously. (And on Cyber, he's a badass FBI agent named Elijah Mundo, for pete's sake! lol) Then of course you have Shad Moss, aka Bow Wow, and people definitely have preconceptions when you've got a rapper-turned-actor in the cast. I think he's pretty good, though. Peter MacNicol is fantastic, but he's not coming back for season two, so it doesn't seem necessary to say much about him. The other main members of the cast, Charley Koontz and Hayley Kiyoko, aren't actors I'm familiar with from anything else, so I don't know much about any assumptions that might go along with them.However if they still get odd collection of actors to show for it I won't be sold that easily like some other shows with less sci-fi-ish-ness did.
Timeslots in the US are kind of strange and complicated, IMO. Hardly anything new airs on Saturday nights, unless the network is burning off remaining episodes of a show they're getting rid of. (Meanwhile, I think Doctor Who and stuff like that airs on Saturday in the UK, which seems strange from my perspective since Saturday is such a dead night here in terms of new TV.) Sunday isn't automatically a bad night (I think Game of Thrones and probably other popular shows do just fine on Sundays), but it doesn't seem to be as popular as some other nights, and with football pushing the schedule back on CBS at the start of the season--it hurt CSI last season, and CSI was much more established, with a dedicated audience. Cyber doesn't have the benefit of 14 previous seasons worth of loyalty to keep people tuning in. And the shows they air it with matter too. I don't know if Madam Secretary and The Good Wife are any better of a fit with Cyber than they were with CSI.the timeslot might not be the worst. I still believe Saturdays are worst if you actually have a life.
Though if you work at Sundays it's not best time either.
Fridays are better unless you finish your shift early and don't have a life.
Haha, well let us know if you get a chance to watch it! I'm curious to hear your opinion.
Yeah, I guess it's because it's a recognizable name/franchise more than anything else. It's also sort of...I dunno, maybe a natural extension of the high tech forensics to jump into computer forensics. (Follow the digital evidence! ) With DB joining the crew, I'll be curious to see if season two has more of the traditional CSI vibe or not...However I don't really connected all the dots about the "CSI" part in it. I would rather "FBI Cyber" instead, since they are, afterall, an FBI organization.