CSI: NY Season 6 Spoiler Discussion - Bright Lights, Big City

[Maya316]

It's not realistic, and at some point you'd think Danny would be forced to deal with his trust issues. They go far beyond his marriage, and it would be nice to see them addressed or the root of them explained. But it is hard to believe the marriage is a happy one when Danny so clearly isn't able or isn't willing to open up to Lindsay.

Exactly. And yeah, Danny's trust issues seem to extend to many, if not all areas of his life. *fights urge to lock him in panic room with therapist* It's a little disappointing to think the show wouldn't ever go the route of him actually getting help for that (or at least having him become aware of it)...with the handling of the wheelchair storyline, I'm even more doubtful that they'd ever go that deep into character development. But it'd be such a little thing to write in! It's tough to see such character moments as impossible to accomplish on CSI:NY, when I'm seeing shows from Grey's Anatomy to Criminal Minds go exactly this same route, with thier characters visiting therapists in order to solve some of their deeper issues. Especially if TPTB want anyone to seriously buy Happy Marriage (TM), I'd think it'd be worth it to put in the effort.

Sidelining Lindsay as a character with DL, however, is a huge example of extremely poor writing. I don`t think this is even just my personal bias talking; it`s just fact that a character is meant to be used, and for more than one function -- unless you specifically created that character for that function. Which I would think they did, only they made Lindsay a regular, have made her one for five years now. She isn`t just an abstract theory; she`s an actual character. A main character in the opening credits -- meaning it makes little sense to see her there, but not in the episodes themselves -- that they not only created to be a fairly big part in the overall CSI:NY story, but that they`re paying to be a fairly big part (regular-character status, as opposed to recurring or even guest-character status). Not to mention she`s a regular character that tons of people have a lot of investment and interest in. Not using her to the full extent that they created her for (even if accidentally) is bad writing, plain and simple, so it`s something they need to fix.

The fact that she's already been absent from two episodes makes me wonder if Lindsay's role in the show isn't being officially reduced behind the scenes. I can't say I'd be sorry if that was the case, though I'll admit the flashes of darkness we saw in the character in "Manhattanhenge" interested me quite a bit, much more so than anything else about her ever has (I had the same reaction to the darkness we saw in her in "Stealing Home"). I don't know if it's too close to or to soon after what Flack's been through, but I'd love to see Lindsay in a situation where she does get pushed to the dark side, maybe protecting Danny and/or Lucy.

i'd been wondering the same. it's possible there are behind the scenes maternity issues or something, lots of new mums find they don't want to go back to work even though they thought they would so who knows? although also in gfd she did point out she was part time now, that might still be the case which would explain her absence.

Yeah, I'm wondering whether her role is being reduced too...although, well, clearly I'd be happier if this weren't the case and I'd probably wonder more if Sid hadn't pulled a Houdini in "Manhattanhenge". The thing is, I doubt I'd have an issue with Lindsay being part-time or having reduced screentime, especially with AB having two kids under the age of three at home... if they were using the screentime she does have to the full advantage. Like that dark moment she had in Manhattanhenge (I agree about the interest-factor of that). If there were more of those, that'd make more sense. Lindsay's always been one of the characters who tends to get stiffed in terms of screentime, that hasn't changed, so it's never been about how much screentime she gets. She barely had three minutes onscreen in both "Fare Game" and "RSRD", and that was way back in Season 2. Conversely, she had a ton of screentime in "Dead Reckoning", and only three of her scenes made any impact on me -- each of them taking maybe 40 seconds, at most. All those are about using her as a main character in the overall story TPTB are telling with this show, since that's what they have her signed on as.

It's terrible writing not to use her as such; since if all they needed was a love interest, they could've filled that role with a recurring character. I do still suspect that Lindsay was basically created to be Danny's love interest, but in making her a main character TPTB took on the responsibility of making her an integral part in the main story -- that's just basic writing 101, so I'd expect the show-writers, at least, to know that. From a purely practical standpoint, as of now Lindsay's still listed as a main character. It just doesn't make sense to literally be paying to have her as one (especially if they're making budget cuts all over the place) and not fully utilize her as one.

Wait... why are Danny, Lindsay, Flack & Hawkes dressed up like elves? Also it looks like Danny is sitting on Lindsay's lap...

LOL, Danny really is always the stereotypical "girl" in any relationship, isn't he? :lol:

Totally agree :lol: And I don't know why, but the way Flack is looking at Santa is still making me LOL.

 

[Top41]

Exactly. And yeah, Danny's trust issues seem to extend to many, if not all areas of his life. *fights urge to lock him in panic room with therapist* It's a little disappointing to think the show wouldn't ever go the route of him actually getting help for that (or at least having him become aware of it)...with the handling of the wheelchair storyline, I'm even more doubtful that they'd ever go that deep into character development. But it'd be such a little thing to write in! It's tough to see such character moments as impossible to accomplish on CSI:NY, when I'm seeing shows from Grey's Anatomy to Criminal Minds go exactly this same route, with thier characters visiting therapists in order to solve some of their deeper issues. Especially if TPTB want anyone to seriously buy Happy Marriage (TM), I'd think it'd be worth it to put in the effort.

Agreed, though I think to get to the root of Danny's issues, they'd have to show the audience what's behind them... and I kind of have a feeling that hasn't been decided yet. Danny's obviously pretty damaged--every time something bad happens to him, his gut instinct seems to be to hide it from everyone around him. That's not healthy, and also not really normal. Even the most private people tell someone about their problems. And it's not like it's just one thing--it's everything. He's so emotional that he ends up bleeding (metaphorically) all over the place anyway, but there's something so messed up about his complete inability to trust.

I gotta admit, I kind of hope the episode Carmine is writing delves into this--I'm sure it will be Danny-centric, but I hope it's something that delves into Danny's past rather than an action-hour. Danny's not an action hero, lol.

Yeah, I'm wondering whether her role is being reduced too...although, well, clearly I'd be happier if this weren't the case and I'd probably wonder more if Sid hadn't pulled a Houdini in "Manhattanhenge".

Have Sid and Adam ever appeared in every episode in any season, though? They became regs in season three and got into the main credits in season four--but I don't think there's ever been a season where they've done every episode. Whereas with Anna, aside from her maternity leaves in season three and five, hasn't been written out of any episodes until this season. To me that feels like a reduction.

The thing is, I doubt I'd have an issue with Lindsay being part-time or having reduced screentime, especially with AB having two kids under the age of three at home... if they were using the screentime she does have to the full advantage. Like that dark moment she had in Manhattanhenge (I agree about the interest-factor of that). If there were more of those, that'd make more sense. Lindsay's always been one of the characters who tends to get stiffed in terms of screentime, that hasn't changed, so it's never been about how much screentime she gets. She barely had three minutes onscreen in both "Fare Game" and "RSRD", and that was way back in Season 2. Conversely, she had a ton of screentime in "Dead Reckoning", and only three of her scenes made any impact on me -- each of them taking maybe 40 seconds, at most. All those are about using her as a main character in the overall story TPTB are telling with this show, since that's what they have her signed on as.

It's terrible writing not to use her as such; since if all they needed was a love interest, they could've filled that role with a recurring character. I do still suspect that Lindsay was basically created to be Danny's love interest, but in making her a main character TPTB took on the responsibility of making her an integral part in the main story -- that's just basic writing 101, so I'd expect the show-writers, at least, to know that. From a purely practical standpoint, as of now Lindsay's still listed as a main character. It just doesn't make sense to literally be paying to have her as one (especially if they're making budget cuts all over the place) and not fully utilize her as one.

I don't think it's bad writing so much as a sign of a lack of interest in the character on the part of the writers. She's always been sort of an add on--she was brought in right away when Aiden left, and the writers did try to develop her in seasons two and three. But it always has felt like she was brought in to be the secondary female character on the show--to fill a demographic rather than anything else (well, aside from being Danny's love interest). It hasn't escaped my notice that Adam and Sid were added specifically because fans took to them. In the same vein, Haylen was introduced as a recurring character and kind of being "tried out" to see if fans take to her. That tells me something was learned from the addition of Lindsay--who is disliked as much as she's liked.

 

[Maya316]

Agreed, though I think to get to the root of Danny's issues, they'd have to show the audience what's behind them... and I kind of have a feeling that hasn't been decided yet. Danny's obviously pretty damaged--every time something bad happens to him, his gut instinct seems to be to hide it from everyone around him. That's not healthy, and also not really normal. Even the most private people tell someone about their problems. And it's not like it's just one thing--it's everything. He's so emotional that he ends up bleeding (metaphorically) all over the place anyway, but there's something so messed up about his complete inability to trust.

I gotta admit, I kind of hope the episode Carmine is writing delves into this--I'm sure it will be Danny-centric, but I hope it's something that delves into Danny's past rather than an action-hour. Danny's not an action hero, lol.

Yeah, I'm definitely pinning a lot of expectations on Carmine's episode too! :lol: I'm hoping they'll finally settle on what's behind Danny's issues (crossing my fingers that it's family, just 'cause I want to see Louie or Tanglewood at least mentioned again), because if they do show it, I can't see how else they'd make us aware of the problem without Danny himself also becoming aware of the problem. And this self-awareness is something I desperately want to see from Danny, because it's a first step. He is damaged -- I agree that trying to hide what's going on (even if others can still see what's going on) is both Danny's MO and a huge sign of damage. Lindsay does the same, which is why I badly want to lock her in with a therapist, too. But I want to see Danny take that first step because, while I agree Danny's damage is a huge part of what makes him interesting, it's something that's been there since S1, that he's taken no steps to acknowledge or work toward fixing...and in terms of character development, that gets old; in terms of well-being, that gets increasingly unhealthy. Mac had a similar problem in recent seasons, but as lisasimpson mentioned in the "Grade Manhattanhenge" thread, he's worked towards opening up more in recent seasons, which at least makes me think he's developing.

Have Sid and Adam ever appeared in every episode in any season, though? They became regs in season three and got into the main credits in season four--but I don't think there's ever been a season where they've done every episode. Whereas with Anna, aside from her maternity leaves in season three and five, hasn't been written out of any episodes until this season. To me that feels like a reduction.

Sid and Adam were in every episode in Season 5, yeah (although in all fairness, I think that was the season they officially got into the opening credits... I don't remember seeing them in the S4 ones). And Sid, at least, was in each episode of S4 and S3, even if only for the obligatory five-minute mortuary scenes. It's part of what has me fairly aggravated with S6, because couple that with some of the character disappearances that have been happening on CSI:Miami, it feels like there's been reduction across the board, and I wonder if that's really the only way they have to deal with budget issues. But I'm having trouble seeing it as a reduction specific to Anna Belknap, though. She was written out of Season 5's episode 5 as well, even though I thought her maternity leave started long after that.

I don't think it's bad writing so much as a sign of a lack of interest in the character on the part of the writers. She's always been sort of an add on--she was brought in right away when Aiden left, and the writers did try to develop her in seasons two and three. But it always has felt like she was brought in to be the secondary female character on the show--to fill a demographic rather than anything else (well, aside from being Danny's love interest). It hasn't escaped my notice that Adam and Sid were added specifically because fans took to them. In the same vein, Haylen was introduced as a recurring character and kind of being "tried out" to see if fans take to her. That tells me something was learned from the addition of Lindsay--who is disliked as much as she's liked.

I too think the writers have very little interest in Lindsay's character beyond DL, have thought so ever since I saw S3, actually. But that still equates to terrible writing. The whole point of creating a main character is to create a (presumably interesting) reason for them to be a part of the main story. Not being interested in one's main characters isn't a free pass to not fully use them as main characters. If Shakespeare had titled "Romeo and Juliet" as "Benvolio", it'd be an example of the exact same thing, since Benvolio hardly appears in the play. Or if the fairly recent "Wolverine" movie had been called "X-men 4". You can't successfully tell a story without using the main characters readers/viewers are expecting to see be used.

ETA: Sorry, correction on this -- theoretically, I think you can tell a story this way, if a writer makes it clear from the beginning that the expected main characters are not the ones that are going to prominently feature in the story. But once it's been made clear which characters are going to mainly feature in the story -- like set out in an opening roll call or credit sequence -- it's a cheat to then back out of using them as a part of the main story.

Yeah, I agree TPTB have been more careful testing the waters with new characters since Lindsay was added, and testing is probably something they should've done with her. I don't think the factor has been so much a lesson learned from Lindsay, as it was a time-constraint factor. [Just 'cause I doubt the end result would've been at all different had they tested the waters with Lindsay -- like with any other character who just wasn't gelling after being added as a regular (Riley Adams, Tara Price, Megan...sorry, I don't remember her last name), she'd've been cut long ago if she wasn't working out, or if there weren't enough positive response.] Aside from a love interest, they seemed to feel they needed a secondary female character ay-sap, whereas I think they decided they could wait to find a permanent lab tech/secondary-lab-tech/coroner. The case is different with Haylen, since she's the only character we're seeing in the part of secondary lab tech (if they add her, I'm imagining she's meant to play the Wendy to Adam's Hodges, or the Cooper/Dave Benton to his Valera)...but they were kind of swapping Sid with other characters (like the ME in "Zoo York", and Marty Pino in "Trapped") when they were testing the waters with him. Did the same with Adam in Season 2. But I think if they had tested with Lindsay by adding her as a recurring character first, they would've been able to get a stronger handle on writing for her character.

 

[Messers fan]

We know there was financial issue for all TV shows, so I wonder if they didn't ask actors cut salary and reduce work time for this season

Danny was part time in some of the episode only a few apparearance in the lab so maybe Anna took some times with his new son and will be more on screen in the second half part of the season, Danny too and maybe less Hawkes.

It's just a theory

 

[Maya316]

^^True, what with the economic crisis, I think all the network shows are in financial crisis, not just the CSI ones.. I've noticed on Grey's Anatomy, for example, some of my fave characters are getting less screentime than before. So I think a lot of actors might've been asked to cut their hours...or maybe the shows' producers were just very happy to give more free time to the actors who might've asked for it. (Like Anna, with the two toddler-age kids at home, or Eva La Rue, who's supposedly filming new episodes for "All My Children" -- I can't see either of them really saying no to more free time).

But I guess I'm a little less sympathetic in the case of CSI:Miami and NY because for the most part, other shows seem to be doing a lot character-wise, even with the new constraints. Criminal Minds and NCIS and the original CSI don't rely half as much on flashy gimmicks, virtual autopsies or lab robots; and I can't help but notice that those are the shows where we've been seeing both even screentime and character development.

 

[raymakay]

RED HEAD GIRL] Early - Mid 20's, Absolutely stunning, seen talking to ADAM ROSS (AJ Buckley) in a bar before their date is rudely interrupted - FEATURED CO-STAR​

Source: SpoilerTV​

This was an additional casting call for Manhattanhenge. They must of decided to go a different direction with Adam. I don't remember this scene? But I did miss the first 3 or 4 minutes.​

 

[Plenilunio]

RED HEAD GIRL] Early - Mid 20's, Absolutely stunning, seen talking to ADAM ROSS (AJ Buckley) in a bar before their date is rudely interrupted - FEATURED CO-STAR​

Source: SpoilerTV​

This was an additional casting call for Manhattanhenge. They must of decided to go a different direction with Adam. I don't remember this scene? But I did miss the first 3 or 4 minutes.​

Unless I fell asleep while watching the episode (could be), that scene wasn't in it. I don't remember any bimbo talking to Adam.

 

[Swede85]

RED HEAD GIRL] Early - Mid 20's, Absolutely stunning, seen talking to ADAM ROSS (AJ Buckley) in a bar before their date is rudely interrupted - FEATURED CO-STAR​

Source: SpoilerTV​

This was an additional casting call for Manhattanhenge. They must of decided to go a different direction with Adam. I don't remember this scene? But I did miss the first 3 or 4 minutes.​

Unless I fell asleep while watching the episode (could be), that scene wasn't in it. I don't remember any bimbo talking to Adam.

Nope, no bimbo in the episode

 

[Vildis]

Adam was just talking to Mac and Danny, when they were still looking for Eckhart. And then he was at the team dinner in the end of the episode. So no bimbo there, unless she will be in a upcoming episode.

 

[Railynn]

RED HEAD GIRL] Early - Mid 20's, Absolutely stunning, seen talking to ADAM ROSS (AJ Buckley) in a bar before their date is rudely interrupted - FEATURED CO-STAR​

Source: SpoilerTV​

This was an additional casting call for Manhattanhenge. They must of decided to go a different direction with Adam. I don't remember this scene? But I did miss the first 3 or 4 minutes.​

Unless I fell asleep while watching the episode (could be), that scene wasn't in it. I don't remember any bimbo talking to Adam.

Nope, no bimbo in the episode

I didnt see Adam on a date, but I did catch the little look between Adam and Stella at the end of the episode when stella gave a toast about loving each other, I don't know if it was done on purpose or not, or if I'm reading way into something but i could have sowrn there was a look between them.

 

[Top41]

Yeah, I'm definitely pinning a lot of expectations on Carmine's episode too! :lol: I'm hoping they'll finally settle on what's behind Danny's issues (crossing my fingers that it's family, just 'cause I want to see Louie or Tanglewood at least mentioned again), because if they do show it, I can't see how else they'd make us aware of the problem without Danny himself also becoming aware of the problem. And this self-awareness is something I desperately want to see from Danny, because it's a first step. He is damaged -- I agree that trying to hide what's going on (even if others can still see what's going on) is both Danny's MO and a huge sign of damage. Lindsay does the same, which is why I badly want to lock her in with a therapist, too. But I want to see Danny take that first step because, while I agree Danny's damage is a huge part of what makes him interesting, it's something that's been there since S1, that he's taken no steps to acknowledge or work toward fixing...and in terms of character development, that gets old; in terms of well-being, that gets increasingly unhealthy. Mac had a similar problem in recent seasons, but as lisasimpson mentioned in the "Grade Manhattanhenge" thread, he's worked towards opening up more in recent seasons, which at least makes me think he's developing.

I'd certainly like to find out what's behind Danny's behavior--I'm not sure I want him fixed because perfect characters are kind of boring, but I'd at least like to see the show delve into what's behind it.

Sid and Adam were in every episode in Season 5, yeah (although in all fairness, I think that was the season they officially got into the opening credits... I don't remember seeing them in the S4 ones). And Sid, at least, was in each episode of S4 and S3, even if only for the obligatory five-minute mortuary scenes. It's part of what has me fairly aggravated with S6, because couple that with some of the character disappearances that have been happening on CSI:Miami, it feels like there's been reduction across the board, and I wonder if that's really the only way they have to deal with budget issues. But I'm having trouble seeing it as a reduction specific to Anna Belknap, though. She was written out of Season 5's episode 5 as well, even though I thought her maternity leave started long after that.

I admit, my memory isn't perfect, but I really didn't think Sid and Adam were in every ep of season five. I didn't remember Lindsay not being in episode five of season five though, either. As for the opening credits, I know those changed in season four to the remix of the theme song, so I thought that was when Sid and Adam were added. I could be wrong though.

I too think the writers have very little interest in Lindsay's character beyond DL, have thought so ever since I saw S3, actually. But that still equates to terrible writing. The whole point of creating a main character is to create a (presumably interesting) reason for them to be a part of the main story. Not being interested in one's main characters isn't a free pass to not fully use them as main characters. If Shakespeare had titled "Romeo and Juliet" as "Benvolio", it'd be an example of the exact same thing, since Benvolio hardly appears in the play. Or if the fairly recent "Wolverine" movie had been called "X-men 4". You can't successfully tell a story without using the main characters readers/viewers are expecting to see be used.

ETA: Sorry, correction on this -- theoretically, I think you can tell a story this way, if a writer makes it clear from the beginning that the expected main characters are not the ones that are going to prominently feature in the story. But once it's been made clear which characters are going to mainly feature in the story -- like set out in an opening roll call or credit sequence -- it's a cheat to then back out of using them as a part of the main story.

It's not CSI: NY Lindsay, though. If anything, Mac and Stella are the Romeo & Juliet equivalent. Being in the main credits doesn't make one the star of the show, especially in a CSI show. Technically, Lindsay has a "reason" to be around--she's part of a romantic pairing. Outside of that, she's never really had much of a purpose.

Yeah, I agree TPTB have been more careful testing the waters with new characters since Lindsay was added, and testing is probably something they should've done with her. I don't think the factor has been so much a lesson learned from Lindsay, as it was a time-constraint factor.

Well, we could speculate until the sun goes down on the reasons, but it was interesting to me that Haylen was "tested" out and that it was specifically stated that that was happening. That's a change in MO.

[Just 'cause I doubt the end result would've been at all different had they tested the waters with Lindsay -- like with any other character who just wasn't gelling after being added as a regular (Riley Adams, Tara Price, Megan...sorry, I don't remember her last name), she'd've been cut long ago if she wasn't working out, or if there weren't enough positive response.]

Maybe, maybe not. The love angle was pushed pretty hard from day one, and then there's the legal issue of firing someone who is pregnant every other season. Not saying they had any intention of firing her--but if they did, it sure would have been tricky legally. No one in Hollywood has forgotten Hunter Tylo suing The Bold & the Beautiful for being fired because she was pregnant.

Aside from a love interest, they seemed to feel they needed a secondary female character ay-sap, whereas I think they decided they could wait to find a permanent lab tech/secondary-lab-tech/coroner. The case is different with Haylen, since she's the only character we're seeing in the part of secondary lab tech (if they add her, I'm imagining she's meant to play the Wendy to Adam's Hodges, or the Cooper/Dave Benton to his Valera)...but they were kind of swapping Sid with other characters (like the ME in "Zoo York", and Marty Pino in "Trapped") when they were testing the waters with him. Did the same with Adam in Season 2. But I think if they had tested with Lindsay by adding her as a recurring character first, they would've been able to get a stronger handle on writing for her character.

But then why was there a lot of material for her in seasons two and three, and not much after that? To me that suggests a loss of interest. They certainly didn't really get a handle on her since her character changed from week to week--but then, it's partially the responsibility of the actress to bring some continuity to her character. It's hard for me to look at the writers and say that they failed with this one character when all of the other characters are so well written and portrayed with such depth.

Danny was part time in some of the episode only a few apparearance in the lab so maybe Anna took some times with his new son and will be more on screen in the second half part of the season, Danny too and maybe less Hawkes.

It's just a theory

It's not about screentime. If the actor appears in one scene, they're paid for the whole episode if they're a series regular (or a recurring). It's when someone is written out of an entire episode that it reflects on their contract--and is a money saver. Clearly Anna Belknap, AJ Buckley and Robert Joy aren't contracted to appear in every episode. That's only really a change for one of them (I'm not counting the maternity leave since that wouldn't be part of a regular pre-season contract).

^^True, what with the economic crisis, I think all the network shows are in financial crisis, not just the CSI ones.. I've noticed on Grey's Anatomy, for example, some of my fave characters are getting less screentime than before. So I think a lot of actors might've been asked to cut their hours...or maybe the shows' producers were just very happy to give more free time to the actors who might've asked for it. (Like Anna, with the two toddler-age kids at home, or Eva La Rue, who's supposedly filming new episodes for "All My Children" -- I can't see either of them really saying no to more free time).

The screentime doesn't matter--if an actor who is contracted as a regular appears in an episode, for 3 minutes or 30, they're paid the same amount. It's when someone is completely absent from an episode that money is saved.

Interesting about the Adam date being cut. I wonder if that's being saved for another episode, or if it's just gone.

 

[Maya316]

It's weird how a couple of scenes got cut; I remember seeing that Adam spoiler weeks ago, too, along with the one saying that Flack would ask Danny if he was alright (after the foot-chase through the sewers) and Danny would pretend to be fine. I'd've personally preferred both scenes to be left in, especially since the Flack/Danny one would've explained a lot to the casual viewers who still thought Danny was in a wheelchair...

But maybe the Adam/Stella eyeflirt wouldn't have made as much sense if Adam had been on a date before his shift? :lol: That might be why they cut it out.

I'd certainly like to find out what's behind Danny's behavior--I'm not sure I want him fixed because perfect characters are kind of boring, but I'd at least like to see the show delve into what's behind it.

I'd imagine it'd take a really long time before Danny got to the point of fixed, 'cause especially with trust issues therapy takes a long time to work. And I probably wouldn't want to see him completely fixed anyway, either But even just acknowledging there's a problem, like they did with Meredith on Grey's, or kind of how they do with House's issues from time to time...I think they could take that sort of self-awareness in an interesting direction with Danny.

I admit, my memory isn't perfect, but I really didn't think Sid and Adam were in every ep of season five. I didn't remember Lindsay not being in episode five of season five though, either. As for the opening credits, I know those changed in season four to the remix of the theme song, so I thought that was when Sid and Adam were added. I could be wrong though.

...Embarrassed to admit it now, but I recently got S5 on DVD :alienblush: I'm a little unsure about "Past, Present, and Murder", 'cause that's the one episode I haven't watched yet, but I definitely remember Adam and Sid being in all the other ones; Adam especially, because he threw the paper airplane in "Page Turner" and then there was that whole thing where he was worried about his job at the beginning of S5. Being in all the episodes was a first for Adam in S5, but Sid's been in all of them since S3 (till now :scream.

It's not CSI: NY Lindsay, though. If anything, Mac and Stella are the Romeo & Juliet equivalent. Being in the main credits doesn't make one the star of the show, especially in a CSI show. Technically, Lindsay has a "reason" to be around--she's part of a romantic pairing. Outside of that, she's never really had much of a purpose.

I don't think it's about being the star, though -- yeah, CSI:NY is a little different because the show centers more on two characters as opposed to the entire team like CSI:LV does. But in completely general terms, the show is supposed to follow this team of scientists (meaning the whole team, since it's not just Mac and Stella in the credits) as they investigate crimes and crime scenes. Sure, that technically means the show is supposed to be just sticking to the stories of the crime scenes, but looking at the main characters who solve those crimes, their story is supposed to be about how their lives (and what goes on in their lives) affects the job they do; or vice versa. Their individual lives, and the different ways it affects their job -- that's supposed to be their reason for being there. (Btw, this is why I'm so against canon shipping :shifty

And for the most part, that's what we see on the show; and not just limited to Mac or Stella.

Lindsay has plenty of things going on in her life that affects what she does on the job, and vice versa; things that they could and have focused on before. But especially this season, what they seem to be focusing on like nuts is how she affects Danny's life, or what part she plays in Danny's life -- rather than the part she plays on the job. That's maddening, because that's usually what recurring (or supporting, in books and plays) characters are for: to set up what's going on in one of the main characters' lives. That's their reason for being there. Why pay a main character to do something a recurring character could do? If they can't put the focus of Lindsay's life back on Lindsay when she's onscreen, then I don't see how that's not bad writing.

Well, we could speculate until the sun goes down on the reasons, but it was interesting to me that Haylen was "tested" out and that it was specifically stated that that was happening. That's a change in MO.

Yeah -- I'm actually pretty glad that Haylen's being tested (earlier this summer, they made it sound like they were just going to drop her in there as a regular). I'm thinking that if they see her as not being received well now, the way she is -- Mary Sue 4.0 -- they might put some genuine work into her character before she shows up in her next episode.

Maybe, maybe not. The love angle was pushed pretty hard from day one, and then there's the legal issue of firing someone who is pregnant every other season. Not saying they had any intention of firing her--but if they did, it sure would have been tricky legally. No one in Hollywood has forgotten Hunter Tylo suing The Bold & the Beautiful for being fired because she was pregnant.

I don't know when they found out Anna Belknap was pregnant the first time (or the second time, for that matter), so can't speculate on that...although, she didn't seem to be showing in the first few episodes of S3...and I'd think that by CotP or earlier (like Megan's character), if they were planning on firing her she'd've already known it.

I do know, though, that contracts are meant to protect the producers as well as the actors; if there's a legitimate reason that they felt she had to go, she wouldn't have been able to get out of it just by being pregnant.

But then why was there a lot of material for her in seasons two and three, and not much after that? To me that suggests a loss of interest. They certainly didn't really get a handle on her since her character changed from week to week--but then, it's partially the responsibility of the actress to bring some continuity to her character. It's hard for me to look at the writers and say that they failed with this one character when all of the other characters are so well written and portrayed with such depth.

I still feel they seemed to get a handle on her character only around late S2, by writing in the element Anna had already added to the character. And they definitely still seemed to have that handle on Lindsay's character throughout S4, even though she didn't get as much solo material (and after two seasons of a lot of material, compared to other characters? That's probably the reason right there.) The way she handled Danny's drama in S4 was all about the issues we'd seen in her throughout S2 and S3. That was all her (in writing and IMO in performance), and while I might not have liked the DL drama of S4, and would rather they stay away from drama now -- I thought the writing for her character was so, so much better back then than it is now.

I don't see why we should only get to see how Lindsay's issues affect her relationship with Danny. I shouldn't need to see DL drama to get to see Lindsay with strong character presence. Or why her growth from those issues should only center around Danny. (It's unbelievably frustrating to see Lindsay try hard to be there for Danny, but see her make no significant change in her relationships with the others. Because in S4, early S4 anyway, they were at least allowing her to do that.) I don't see how it's not bad writing that her character development is limited to him. That's an extremely limiting way to write any character, whether you're interested in them or not. You have to admit that not one of the other characters are written this codependently around another character. This is exactly how it becomes so obvious that Lindsay was originally created to be Danny's LI. And I think if they'd waited to get a stronger handle on her, they'd at least know how to incorporate the character and that development that she already has, to include the other characters rather than just Danny.

The screentime doesn't matter--if an actor who is contracted as a regular appears in an episode, for 3 minutes or 30, they're paid the same amount. It's when someone is completely absent from an episode that money is saved.

That's interesting...it makes me wonder why so many shows have recently taken on new characters, though (and thereby cutting the screentime of original characters). You'd think that wouldn't be the best way to handle a budget crisis

 

[Top41]

I'd imagine it'd take a really long time before Danny got to the point of fixed, 'cause especially with trust issues therapy takes a long time to work. And I probably wouldn't want to see him completely fixed anyway, either But even just acknowledging there's a problem, like they did with Meredith on Grey's, or kind of how they do with House's issues from time to time...I think they could take that sort of self-awareness in an interesting direction with Danny.

They could, but Danny's not the lead, whereas House and Meredith are. Danny's issues are many and complicated, and they're so intrinsic to who he is. Danny's inability to trust is something that feels like it was developed at an early age. I feel like any attempt to fix that in him would feel like a short-change, because that's not really the point of the show.

...Embarrassed to admit it now, but I recently got S5 on DVD :alienblush: I'm a little unsure about "Past, Present, and Murder", 'cause that's the one episode I haven't watched yet, but I definitely remember Adam and Sid being in all the other ones; Adam especially, because he threw the paper airplane in "Page Turner" and then there was that whole thing where he was worried about his job at the beginning of S5. Being in all the episodes was a first for Adam in S5, but Sid's been in all of them since S3 (till now :scream.

Sid was really in all of them? That's definitely something I don't remember--I could have sworn people have commented on Sid being absent from eps before this season.

I don't think it's about being the star, though -- yeah, CSI:NY is a little different because the show centers more on two characters as opposed to the entire team like CSI:LV does. But in completely general terms, the show is supposed to follow this team of scientists (meaning the whole team, since it's not just Mac and Stella in the credits) as they investigate crimes and crime scenes. Sure, that technically means the show is supposed to be just sticking to the stories of the crime scenes, but looking at the main characters who solve those crimes, their story is supposed to be about how their lives (and what goes on in their lives) affects the job they do; or vice versa. Their individual lives, and the different ways it affects their job -- that's supposed to be their reason for being there. (Btw, this is why I'm so against canon shipping :shifty

And for the most part, that's what we see on the show; and not just limited to Mac or Stella.

Lindsay has plenty of things going on in her life that affects what she does on the job, and vice versa; things that they could and have focused on before. But especially this season, what they seem to be focusing on like nuts is how she affects Danny's life, or what part she plays in Danny's life -- rather than the part she plays on the job. That's maddening, because that's usually what recurring (or supporting, in books and plays) characters are for: to set up what's going on in one of the main characters' lives. That's their reason for being there. Why pay a main character to do something a recurring character could do? If they can't put the focus of Lindsay's life back on Lindsay when she's onscreen, then I don't see how that's not bad writing.

It's not bad writing--it's simply writing that's not there. For whatever reason--and I think we can all probably speculate about this until the cows come home and bring out own biases and theories to the table--focusing on Lindsay is not a priority. My personal thoughts are that she was such a failure as a character in her early seasons--that Anna bungled whatever emotional material she was handed--that the writers decided to just sideline her and put the focus on what, for many, makes her popular--the relationship with Danny. Much as I dislike DL (or used to--now it's so banal that it's really hard to call it offensive), it is popular, largely with that younger audience that networks crave. That I imagine made getting rid of the character tricky, since they'd alienate that fanbase. But sticking her in the background/writing her solely as a love interest largely neutralizes Anna's weaknesses as an actress. Hard to bungle scenes if you're not given much to do but stare lovingly at your character's love interest.

Yeah -- I'm actually pretty glad that Haylen's being tested (earlier this summer, they made it sound like they were just going to drop her in there as a regular). I'm thinking that if they see her as not being received well now, the way she is -- Mary Sue 4.0 -- they might put some genuine work into her character before she shows up in her next episode.

Or just let her fall into the Black Hole of Continuity and try out another character next season. I'm rarely one to get on the diversity bandwagon--meaning I don't think characters/actors should be handpicked because of race--but the lack of diversity on this show, given that it's set in New York City, is more than a little unsettling. The show felt at its most authentic in season one, when it was deemed "too dark" in tone.

But I digress a bit. If Haylen's to stick around, I would like to see her as something else other than another Mary Sue. The show certainly doesn't need two Mary Sues.

I don't know when they found out Anna Belknap was pregnant the first time (or the second time, for that matter), so can't speculate on that...although, she didn't seem to be showing in the first few episodes of S3...and I'd think that by CotP or earlier (like Megan's character), if they were planning on firing her she'd've already known it.

No, and I doubt they were. I'm just saying there hasn't really been an opportunity if they were.

I do know, though, that contracts are meant to protect the producers as well as the actors; if there's a legitimate reason that they felt she had to go, she wouldn't have been able to get out of it just by being pregnant.

You'd be surprised. Not saying that's a bad thing--it shouldn't be easy to fire a woman for being pregnant. But I do find it interesting that this season, her episode order has clearly been cut.

I still feel they seemed to get a handle on her character only around late S2, by writing in the element Anna had already added to the character.

But then why did she change so much throughout season two, if Anna brought any stability or consistency to the character? I'd go further, but this really is probably a topic for one of the Lindsay threads.

I don't see why we should only get to see how Lindsay's issues affect her relationship with Danny. I shouldn't need to see DL drama to get to see Lindsay with strong character presence. Or why her growth from those issues should only center around Danny. (It's unbelievably frustrating to see Lindsay try hard to be there for Danny, but see her make no significant change in her relationships with the others. Because in S4, early S4 anyway, they were at least allowing her to do that.) I don't see how it's not bad writing that her character development is limited to him. That's an extremely limiting way to write any character, whether you're interested in them or not. You have to admit that not one of the other characters are written this codependently around another character. This is exactly how it becomes so obvious that Lindsay was originally created to be Danny's LI. And I think if they'd waited to get a stronger handle on her, they'd at least know how to incorporate the character and that development that she already has, to include the other characters rather than just Danny.

Honestly, I think they're writing around a weak actress. They've found a niche to stick her in that works--it pleases the majority of Lindsay fans, because she's married to Danny and that's what many wanted all along, and pleases her detractors because she's simply not that big a factor. For seasons two through four, I thought she was horrid, but now she feels kind of neutralized. I think they've effectively found a compromise--for everyone but those who genuinely like Lindsay as a character separate from Danny. And I know you're one of those who do. I do think they're playing to her strengths this season--she's been way more even-keeled and consistent than before. I can only think of one bad acting moment from her this season--the wide-mouthed thing after Danny was shot. Otherwise, she's been pretty decent.

That's interesting...it makes me wonder why so many shows have recently taken on new characters, though (and thereby cutting the screentime of original characters). You'd think that wouldn't be the best way to handle a budget crisis

I don't think the budgets are cut as much as we were led to believe at the end of last season. Aside from Lauren Lee Smith's disappearance from CSI, I think all of the changes have made sense storywise. Angell's death was definitely sad, but it served a purpose. Tara's storyline did too (though less so than Angell's).

 

[Plenilunio]

Has this been post before? If so, I'm sorry, feel free to delete this message:

6.11, "Second Chances", press release

 

[Maya316]

They could, but Danny's not the lead, whereas House and Meredith are. Danny's issues are many and complicated, and they're so intrinsic to who he is. Danny's inability to trust is something that feels like it was developed at an early age. I feel like any attempt to fix that in him would feel like a short-change, because that's not really the point of the show.

Probably the way TPTB would handle it, yeah, how quickly he'd get over his issues might feel like a cheat. But honestly, I don't think they're doing much better sweeping them under the rug right now with his marriage. I guess I just really like self-awareness in characters -- part of what interests me in Lindsay is how she seems pretty aware of her issues, and her limitations. Mac seems to have gained that level of self-awareness in S3 and S4, and that's when I really started liking him, Adam and Flack are extremely self-aware already.

Yeah, it sucks that of all those characters, Mac (who's the lead) is the only one we've actually seen gain self-awareness, but I just don't think it'd take all that much for Danny to do the same, and imo it'd be a neat thing to see.

Sid was really in all of them? That's definitely something I don't remember--I could have sworn people have commented on Sid being absent from eps before this season.

The problem is his scenes were about thirty seconds long (if that) in a lot of the S3 episodes (right up to "Heart of Glass"), and again, they were the obligatory autopsy scenes. But he was in every one. Honestly, the only episodes I remember not seeing Sid at all are from S1, of course, and S2 (everything up til "Dancing with the Fishes", "Trapped", and "Charge of this Post"). And then there's S6.

It's not bad writing--it's simply writing that's not there. For whatever reason--and I think we can all probably speculate about this until the cows come home and bring out own biases and theories to the table--focusing on Lindsay is not a priority. My personal thoughts are that she was such a failure as a character in her early seasons--that Anna bungled whatever emotional material she was handed--that the writers decided to just sideline her and put the focus on what, for many, makes her popular--the relationship with Danny. Much as I dislike DL (or used to--now it's so banal that it's really hard to call it offensive), it is popular, largely with that younger audience that networks crave. That I imagine made getting rid of the character tricky, since they'd alienate that fanbase. But sticking her in the background/writing her solely as a love interest largely neutralizes Anna's weaknesses as an actress. Hard to bungle scenes if you're not given much to do but stare lovingly at your character's love interest.

Perhaps; maybe they're just overlooking her character this season. I'd hesitate to say that doing so for long won't alienate their DL fanbase; the ones I've spoken with seem to be getting increasingly p*ssed too, but I don't know all that many, and certainly can't speak for any, let alone all of them.

But characters who don't develop during their stories (well, characters that readers/viewers/etc would generally expect to see develop) always get critiqued just for that, and the flack usually falls on the writer. Whether it's fanfiction, published writing, theatre plays, film, tv.
It drove me crazy how Aiden got little to no development before she left the show, and I didn't even like Angell, but I called bad writing on her -- again, the no development. Writing that's not there is just the same as bad writing when handling characters. Not even having the excuse of saying that they just "forgot about the character", though (ie, by sidelining Lindsay with DL, they'd clearly be remembering the character, they just wouldn't develop her on purpose)....definitely bad writing.

I can't see the sense of risking the critique and writing around a bad actress, when they've gotten rid of characters involved in relationships before...if it were just the relationship that attracted the fans, I'd get rid of the bad actress, stick Danny with another girl, and wait for the ratings to come in. But that's just me.

Or just let her fall into the Black Hole of Continuity and try out another character next season. I'm rarely one to get on the diversity bandwagon--meaning I don't think characters/actors should be handpicked because of race--but the lack of diversity on this show, given that it's set in New York City, is more than a little unsettling. The show felt at its most authentic in season one, when it was deemed "too dark" in tone.

But that'd be so annoying :lol: (letting her fall into that BHC, especially now that they've got Adam tied in with her new-girl story). If they had to hire her, I'd rather see them flesh Haylen out. I do see the point about the lack of diversity, though; S2 wasn't horrible at the beginning in terms of that, but the show hasn't felt like an authentic New York City for a while now.

You'd be surprised. Not saying that's a bad thing--it shouldn't be easy to fire a woman for being pregnant. But I do find it interesting that this season, her episode order has clearly been cut.

Yeah, but not just hers. And well, she wasn't pregnant at the end of S5, plus there was all that hype about a character possibly leaving the show, since they were all getting their contracts renewed (I think). I obviously have no idea what the real issue was there, but I do think that if they were waiting for a chance to get rid of her, they just missed a pretty golden one.

Honestly, I think they're writing around a weak actress. They've found a niche to stick her in that works--it pleases the majority of Lindsay fans, because she's married to Danny and that's what many wanted all along, and pleases her detractors because she's simply not that big a factor. For seasons two through four, I thought she was horrid, but now she feels kind of neutralized. I think they've effectively found a compromise--for everyone but those who genuinely like Lindsay as a character separate from Danny. And I know you're one of those who do. I do think they're playing to her strengths this season--she's been way more even-keeled and consistent than before. I can only think of one bad acting moment from her this season--the wide-mouthed thing after Danny was shot. Otherwise, she's been pretty decent.

This'll probably get back to my not seeing her as being particularly uneven in S2 (she was uneven in S3, but that's another issue), but what exactly is she consistently doing now with Danny that she couldn't possibly do with another character? I agree they might be keeping Lindsay as "light" this season, and she's fun when she's "light". But they've done that before, and with more characters than just him. I'm actually particularly disappointed with this season because they seemed to be doing pretty well with her development last season in getting her to that be-there-for-others stage, again, not just with Danny. Yeah, it's only the first half of the season right now, so I can't write it off completely; but limiting all that to him now -- I don't see a specific design in that, I think that's just flat-out laziness.

I don't think the budgets are cut as much as we were led to believe at the end of last season. Aside from Lauren Lee Smith's disappearance from CSI, I think all of the changes have made sense storywise. Angell's death was definitely sad, but it served a purpose. Tara's storyline did too (though less so than Angell's).

With the economic crisis, I'm thinking there has to be at least a bit of an issue; it just seems odd that quite a few characters were cut from the CSI franchise this year, because I don't remember ever seeing that many cuts all at once. It probably isn't as big a problem as they implied it to be (although that really sucks for all the actors they've cut loose because of it!), but if it was, it might just have been better to capitalize (story-wise) on the characters that had to go.