CSI:LV season 10 in the UK
- Thread starter Solitaire
- Start date
Athersgeo
Rookie
On a completely off topic note: How to Train Your Dragon may just be about the BEST film title I've come across in yonks. And, for that matter, when was the last time you heard someone say "Lock up your sheep"?
*giggles*
Ahem.
Okay.
That was...a weirdly unbalanced episode. Sam has to be the most pathetic character CSI has ever invented (he even beats the guy from Happenstance from s7 - and I didn't think they'd ever manage to top a guy so inept he got himself encased in concrete!), and, as my mother noted, the story really did tail off towards the end because, frankly, Sam's ineptitude just didn't make for an interesting or remotely satisfying ending.
The fact that the gunfight was resolved/solved inside the first act didn't help matters, (and on a purely base note: Good Lord but Gerrald McCulloch hasn't aged well!) because that essentially left Greg and Nick playing exposition guys. They look awful pretty doing it (yeah, I'm back with that base thing), but it's a waste of two otherwise interesting characters.
On the upswing: Sara's a shipper! Has to be. The only people I know who can judge a relationship from one bout of handholding are Shippers of the more...focussed kind. (And I don't mean that as any kind of complement!) Having said that, the whole Sara/Catherine conversation in the garage, with Catherine going all coy, THAT was cute. As was Catherine's conversation with Greg. So very, very nice to see Catherine getting some lighter moments.
And a few bits in brief:
-Did they give Wendy a valium this week? I know I complained a couple of weeks back that the poor gal didn't take a breath, but this is going to the other extreme!
-Anyone care to explain why Henry was in autopsy discussing the Phillips' family dogs? I presume he was actually there to pick up the dog's blood to run tox on it, but it might have been nice if they'd actually said that.
-Speaking of the Phillips' family dogs, do we think David was talking about the dogs he and his wife owned, or childhood dogs?
-Wow, what horrible green-screen work at the end when Sam's standing up on the ledge. Completely zapped the moment of any tension for me. I've seen CSI (specifically, CSI:NY) do that sort of thing muuuuuuuuuuuch better than that.
-No Hodges this week? Maybe he's still recovering from last week's road trip...
All in all, then, another not-so-great episode - decently entertaining but when compared against To Tough To Die (tonight's CSI episode on Five USA) it just doesn't stand up.
Lastly, the Panty Sniffer. There's been a loooooooot (well, six or eight posts, at least!) of discussion about that episode title over in the season 10 spoiler discussion thread and I think the general consensus is:
1) Wow, what a horrible episode title
2) It IS down for broadcast on April 1st, so maybe it's an April Fool.
Speaking personally? I'm clinging to point 2 to the point of hugging it, squeezing it and calling it George!
So; what did anyone else think?
*giggles*
Ahem.
Okay.
That was...a weirdly unbalanced episode. Sam has to be the most pathetic character CSI has ever invented (he even beats the guy from Happenstance from s7 - and I didn't think they'd ever manage to top a guy so inept he got himself encased in concrete!), and, as my mother noted, the story really did tail off towards the end because, frankly, Sam's ineptitude just didn't make for an interesting or remotely satisfying ending.
The fact that the gunfight was resolved/solved inside the first act didn't help matters, (and on a purely base note: Good Lord but Gerrald McCulloch hasn't aged well!) because that essentially left Greg and Nick playing exposition guys. They look awful pretty doing it (yeah, I'm back with that base thing), but it's a waste of two otherwise interesting characters.
On the upswing: Sara's a shipper! Has to be. The only people I know who can judge a relationship from one bout of handholding are Shippers of the more...focussed kind. (And I don't mean that as any kind of complement!) Having said that, the whole Sara/Catherine conversation in the garage, with Catherine going all coy, THAT was cute. As was Catherine's conversation with Greg. So very, very nice to see Catherine getting some lighter moments.
And a few bits in brief:
-Did they give Wendy a valium this week? I know I complained a couple of weeks back that the poor gal didn't take a breath, but this is going to the other extreme!
-Anyone care to explain why Henry was in autopsy discussing the Phillips' family dogs? I presume he was actually there to pick up the dog's blood to run tox on it, but it might have been nice if they'd actually said that.
-Speaking of the Phillips' family dogs, do we think David was talking about the dogs he and his wife owned, or childhood dogs?
-Wow, what horrible green-screen work at the end when Sam's standing up on the ledge. Completely zapped the moment of any tension for me. I've seen CSI (specifically, CSI:NY) do that sort of thing muuuuuuuuuuuch better than that.
-No Hodges this week? Maybe he's still recovering from last week's road trip...
All in all, then, another not-so-great episode - decently entertaining but when compared against To Tough To Die (tonight's CSI episode on Five USA) it just doesn't stand up.
Lastly, the Panty Sniffer. There's been a loooooooot (well, six or eight posts, at least!) of discussion about that episode title over in the season 10 spoiler discussion thread and I think the general consensus is:
1) Wow, what a horrible episode title
2) It IS down for broadcast on April 1st, so maybe it's an April Fool.
Speaking personally? I'm clinging to point 2 to the point of hugging it, squeezing it and calling it George!
So; what did anyone else think?
Solitaire
CSI Level Two
^ I have to say that I enjoyed the episode.
First off- Bobby's back!!! Yeah, I love Bobby so the epi got lots of plus points from me for that. Its strange, because me and my Mam were just saying last week that Bobby had been awol for so long that we were frightened he would never come back.
About Sam- he was rather pathetic, but I didnt mind his characer, and I thought the end was good.
Cath and Vartaan? I'd never really thought of that pairing but I quite like it. I agree that it was a sweet scene with Cath and Sara. I think its about time Catherine had something positive going on, so this is a step in the right direction.
Nick and Greg did look pretty, didnt they! I do think they could have made more out of that shootout.
Dave's comments about the dogs- definitely childhood pets. My Mam did the same to me and my sis when we were little- said are dog had gone to the farm. Unfortunately she is a really bad liar, and after one question about it she blurted out the truth! Terrible!
Maybe that epi title is an April Fools- it is pretty bad.
First off- Bobby's back!!! Yeah, I love Bobby so the epi got lots of plus points from me for that. Its strange, because me and my Mam were just saying last week that Bobby had been awol for so long that we were frightened he would never come back.
About Sam- he was rather pathetic, but I didnt mind his characer, and I thought the end was good.
Cath and Vartaan? I'd never really thought of that pairing but I quite like it. I agree that it was a sweet scene with Cath and Sara. I think its about time Catherine had something positive going on, so this is a step in the right direction.
Nick and Greg did look pretty, didnt they! I do think they could have made more out of that shootout.
Dave's comments about the dogs- definitely childhood pets. My Mam did the same to me and my sis when we were little- said are dog had gone to the farm. Unfortunately she is a really bad liar, and after one question about it she blurted out the truth! Terrible!
Maybe that epi title is an April Fools- it is pretty bad.
LasVegasCSI
Witness
on in three guys!! VEGAS BABY!!!!
Athersgeo
Rookie
Further to last week's OT comments: I can't believe they've decided to go with just "Dragons". The title was the best part of the whole idea!
*sigh*
Ahem.
Right.
Interesting episode but, a little like last week's, it was weirdly unbalanced because, once again, one of the cases was essentially wrapped up way too quickly.
Side note: Did anyone seriously think that Hughes was going to prove to be Dr Jekyll? I think I'd have been seriously disappointed to see the storyline fizzle into that, and I don't think the writers are that stupid, so there was never any second where I believed it could be.
Catherine and Greg's case was a more interesting story and much more developed although it IS the kind of story that CSI has done before - and probably done better.
Random thought one: In Playing with Fire, Grissom makes a big song and dance about how prints only stay on a human body for a very short period of time yet they're able to pull prints off this girl's body several hours later? Has the science changed/moved forward or is that bit of a goof somewhere?
Random thought two: Dusting a plastic bag for prints? I thought that was what superglue and/or vacuum metal deposition was for...
(I seriously never thought I'd be nitpicking the science of this show)
Random thought three: My hat is well and truly off to the actress playing the first corpse though. I can't imagine trying to lie still while someone dusts me for prints!
A few more points in brief:
-Wendy!!! And a LOT of Wendy this week, too - which is always nice to see. Verrrrrry interesting scene between her and Ray (more on that in a second)
-That last scene was...I hesitate to say adorable because LF isn't exactly the adorable type (bit too big for adorable), but it was cute and I'm definitely more than a touch curious to know who Nick was on the phone to. There was much discussion (some of it surprisingly heated!) on that topic on the OTHER discussion thread with theories about that - someone people were saying April, some people were suggesting Tina (as in Warrick's ex-wife), some people were saying someone else entirely. I think I tend to lean towards the "someone else entirely" side of the equation - and I do have one (extremely) wild theory about it that I'm almost abso-posi-lutely sure is wrong that I will reveal if anyone wants to know.
-So, Ray doesn't want his DNA in a database. Hmmmmm. This MUST mean he's Dr Jekyll...or, y'know, not! Ignoring the fact that I thought CSIs' DNA probably had to be in a database anyway to automatically exclude them, I have to admit his refusal IS a little suspicious, but I didn't actually get a sinister vibe off it at all (again this was something that got pretty heavily debated in the OTHER thread), more a case of his not wanting to have his DNA in a database for no especially good reason WHICH, let's face it, is fairly understandable.
-Given the real world political events of this week, definitely an interesting time for a character to opine "Reform health care all you like; my patients will always be left out." I think that might just be the closest I've seen CSI come to making a political statement.
-Is it my imagination or did Nick get a hair cut between scenes? Out at the truck/dump site his hair definitely seemed longer than the scene in the layout room which was, presumably, the same day just a couple of hours later... Hm. May need to go bounce that one of the folks on the Syndrome Ward...
-First time I've seen Cavaliere in a while. Good to know he's still the same smug ass he's always been...
-Out running a helicopter in a beaten up pickup truck? Never gonna happen...
So; what did anyone else think?
*sigh*
Ahem.
Right.
Interesting episode but, a little like last week's, it was weirdly unbalanced because, once again, one of the cases was essentially wrapped up way too quickly.
Side note: Did anyone seriously think that Hughes was going to prove to be Dr Jekyll? I think I'd have been seriously disappointed to see the storyline fizzle into that, and I don't think the writers are that stupid, so there was never any second where I believed it could be.
Catherine and Greg's case was a more interesting story and much more developed although it IS the kind of story that CSI has done before - and probably done better.
Random thought one: In Playing with Fire, Grissom makes a big song and dance about how prints only stay on a human body for a very short period of time yet they're able to pull prints off this girl's body several hours later? Has the science changed/moved forward or is that bit of a goof somewhere?
Random thought two: Dusting a plastic bag for prints? I thought that was what superglue and/or vacuum metal deposition was for...
(I seriously never thought I'd be nitpicking the science of this show)
Random thought three: My hat is well and truly off to the actress playing the first corpse though. I can't imagine trying to lie still while someone dusts me for prints!
A few more points in brief:
-Wendy!!! And a LOT of Wendy this week, too - which is always nice to see. Verrrrrry interesting scene between her and Ray (more on that in a second)
-That last scene was...I hesitate to say adorable because LF isn't exactly the adorable type (bit too big for adorable), but it was cute and I'm definitely more than a touch curious to know who Nick was on the phone to. There was much discussion (some of it surprisingly heated!) on that topic on the OTHER discussion thread with theories about that - someone people were saying April, some people were suggesting Tina (as in Warrick's ex-wife), some people were saying someone else entirely. I think I tend to lean towards the "someone else entirely" side of the equation - and I do have one (extremely) wild theory about it that I'm almost abso-posi-lutely sure is wrong that I will reveal if anyone wants to know.
-So, Ray doesn't want his DNA in a database. Hmmmmm. This MUST mean he's Dr Jekyll...or, y'know, not! Ignoring the fact that I thought CSIs' DNA probably had to be in a database anyway to automatically exclude them, I have to admit his refusal IS a little suspicious, but I didn't actually get a sinister vibe off it at all (again this was something that got pretty heavily debated in the OTHER thread), more a case of his not wanting to have his DNA in a database for no especially good reason WHICH, let's face it, is fairly understandable.
-Given the real world political events of this week, definitely an interesting time for a character to opine "Reform health care all you like; my patients will always be left out." I think that might just be the closest I've seen CSI come to making a political statement.
-Is it my imagination or did Nick get a hair cut between scenes? Out at the truck/dump site his hair definitely seemed longer than the scene in the layout room which was, presumably, the same day just a couple of hours later... Hm. May need to go bounce that one of the folks on the Syndrome Ward...
-First time I've seen Cavaliere in a while. Good to know he's still the same smug ass he's always been...
-Out running a helicopter in a beaten up pickup truck? Never gonna happen...
So; what did anyone else think?
Solitaire
CSI Level Two
Athersgeo -I agree on all points.
I did enjoy the episode, but it was very obvious that the suspect wasn't Dr Jekyll. And I was rather surprised that the case was wrapped up as quick as it was, but that did allow more time for the dead girl story, which I did enjoy- although I agree that similar storylines have been done better in the past.
My main reason for liking that plot so much was the amount of Greg we got! He hasn't had such good screentime in ages. For the past couple of seasons tptb seem to have forgotten that he existed, so it is good to see him get the screentime he deserves. (plus, after Grissom, he is my favourite character) So the episode got major plus points from me for that reason.
It was very odd that Ray didnt want his DNA in the database. I also thought all CSI's would have had to give it automatically when they started for elimination purposes. But I suppose his refusal makes it seem like he has an interesting backstory, when it is probably something really trivial!
I did enjoy the episode, but it was very obvious that the suspect wasn't Dr Jekyll. And I was rather surprised that the case was wrapped up as quick as it was, but that did allow more time for the dead girl story, which I did enjoy- although I agree that similar storylines have been done better in the past.
My main reason for liking that plot so much was the amount of Greg we got! He hasn't had such good screentime in ages. For the past couple of seasons tptb seem to have forgotten that he existed, so it is good to see him get the screentime he deserves. (plus, after Grissom, he is my favourite character) So the episode got major plus points from me for that reason.
It was very odd that Ray didnt want his DNA in the database. I also thought all CSI's would have had to give it automatically when they started for elimination purposes. But I suppose his refusal makes it seem like he has an interesting backstory, when it is probably something really trivial!
LasVegasCSI
Witness
Athersgeo
Rookie
Yeah - the Ray stuff hasn't been handled at all well (from a point of view of building the arc). There've been a comparative tonne of little hints tossed out, but with no resolution offered, all they do is irritate the viewer rather than build tension.
And by tonne, I actually mean there's only been a small handful because the writers seem to keep forgetting that they're supposed to be building this story!
tootes
Rookie
Keeping it brief, really enjoyed the episode.. was deffiantely more interersted in Greg & Catherine's case though.
^^ I agree, that would have been the most pants ending to a storyline ever !!
Hmmm' i like to ramble on, but missed all the conversations.
Am determind to look on here earlier next week, as is easter hols should be able to x
^^ I agree, that would have been the most pants ending to a storyline ever !!
Hmmm' i like to ramble on, but missed all the conversations.
Am determind to look on here earlier next week, as is easter hols should be able to x
Solitaire
CSI Level Two
^ So you remembered to watch the epi, Katie?!
I forget loads of really useful, important things that I need to remember, but I never forget tv. It's terrible!
Having Hughes as Dr Jekyll would have been a definite anti-climax. There was no way it could have been him, which spoilt an interesting storyline.
Athersgeo- I agree about Ray's story arc. Its practically non-existant, then all of a sudden there's a load of references to his Dad. Then it stops again, and now there is the odd hint. Its got no momentum!
I forget loads of really useful, important things that I need to remember, but I never forget tv. It's terrible!
Having Hughes as Dr Jekyll would have been a definite anti-climax. There was no way it could have been him, which spoilt an interesting storyline.
Athersgeo- I agree about Ray's story arc. Its practically non-existant, then all of a sudden there's a load of references to his Dad. Then it stops again, and now there is the odd hint. Its got no momentum!