CSI:NY Spoiler Discussion - Bring on Season 6!

[Top41]

But if they cast someone for the part without actually defining what that part is, I really think they're going to end up with the same disconnect between actress and character that some see between Belknap and Lindsay. They shouldn't just be looking for someone who will be able to comfortably fit into the (possibly constricting) role of the character, once they flesh out who that character is. They should be looking for someone who, when they find her, can play the part so that viewers will literally not be able to picture anyone else as Kaye Sullivan.

Ideally, but realistically for a new character they're not going to have her fully fleshed out yet, in the same way the characters who are regs on the show weren't fully fleshed out when they were cast either. A good actor or actress takes a role and makes it his/her own. The writers develop the characters over years, and the actor/actress needs to be able to keep up and add nuance and depth to the character with what the writers give him/her.

The fact that they're not seems to me like they're basically repeating the mistakes they may have made with Lindsay/Belknap, and sticking the actresses with a raw deal. Especially considering the emotional scene. I personally think Belknap pulled that off well. It's easy to play "angry-emotional", what if they one day need Kaye Sullivan to pay happy-emotional? Or breaking-down emotional? What if she's able to be sassy and confident, but can't be cute and bubbly (like her character is apparently supposed to be)?

They'll probably go with the read they like best. It's the actress's job to come in and convince the producers she's the right person for the part. It's kind of a "you know it when you see it" thing. A good actress can do that. The problem with Belknap is that they cast her after a bad audition--always a mistake.

A lot of people have a say in casting though. Not the writers--the writers who are executive producers do, but the writers don't have any say. The problem is that the EPs aren't the only ones with say--the studio and the network have a say, too. A lot of hands in the pot, and sometimes that doesn't result in the best choice. Usually it does--as I've said before, I think the rest of the cast is excellent, so I'm pretty confident Kaye Sullivan will be, too. In my eyes, Belknap is the exception to the rule. She's the only miscast I've seen on all three shows. In a series regular role at least--some of those stunt casting guest stars have been pretty bad!

 

[CSI Cupcake]

Personally, I think Belknap handled the emotional stuff pretty well, with the exception of some scenes in S3. But that is just my opinion.

Maya316 you do have a point about testing the skills of the actress in the areas that she is being cast for...cute, bubbly, inquisitive, etc. However, even though they say they are going to be more character driven in S6, it is still a procedural show and that being said, I can understand them focusing more on the actress' ability to handle the scientific jargon and the police end of it. I know most everyone loved Vanssa Ferlito as Aiden, but personally, every time I watched her in the lab she jarred me out of the scene because she was so nervous around the evidence and machines. If you watch closely, her hands shook every time and she never looked like she was comfortable doing her job. That made it hard for me to take her seriously as a character.

The fact that we have characters like Danny and Don and Adam (for which I cannot possibly concieve of anyone else playing the parts except Carmine, Eddie and AJ) is a bonus that is rarely duplicated. Even in a huge cast like ER over 15 (?) years, I can think of only two characters, Dr. Green and Dr. Carter, that I can't possibly see being played by anyone other than Anthony Edwards and Noah Wyle. I just don't think it happens all that frequently. It would be wonderful for it to happen again on CSI:NY but I'm not holding my breath and will count it as a wonderful bonus if it does occur.

And I agree with you that it seemed a stretch for Sid to talk about his history with Jess, but I took that as one of those things I just have to swallow as happening off screen and an effort by the writers to include everyone in the finale and to give Sid a place in the cliffhanger. When they said goodbye to Aiden, only the immediate team was there and I think they included Flack in the scene.

 

[Maya316]

Ideally, but realistically for a new character they're not going to have her fully fleshed out yet, in the same way the characters who are regs on the show weren't fully fleshed out when they were cast either. A good actor or actress takes a role and makes it his/her own. The writers develop the characters over years, and the actor/actress needs to be able to keep up and add nuance and depth to the character with what the writers give him/her.

I guess...although (and I'm probably gonna come back to this later) I really think the rule might've been different at the start of CSI:NY. It always hits me like the characters the show started out with - Mac, Stella, Flack, Danny, even Aiden, not Hawkes so much but to an extent - were thought out much more carefully than the newer characters which have been brought in over the years. They all strike me as though they were alive on the page before the actors themselves brought them to life. The actors did add their own dimension, and the writers developed them over the years, but for the most part no matter what their storylines have been, they're the same, believable people that they were at the beginning of the show. They're consistent. The other characters aren't, not so much.

The newer characters, I can't help but feel that they were all signed on after auditions like this one, and like you saidthe actors were left to make their own a role that they were only given later, after the audition. Which may be the job of an actor, but doesn't exactly seem fair when the casting people don't do their job either. Adam, I love him and Buckley does an excellent job with him, but he's not exactly original - he's frighteningly reminiscent of early-days Greg from CSI. It's like the writers slapped his character together at the last minute. Robert Joy was so the one to add that element of endearing creepiness to Sid's character, because it's clear the writers didn't put much thought into the character of the ME. It was clear when the ME was Hawkes, which, though Harper does great with the part, still shows today. Belknap, I think, added her own element to the Mary-Sue-ish character she was given (this, more than anything, is what's making me cringe about Kaye Sullivan - I really don't see what else another actress would be able to do). As, I think, did Emmanuelle Vaugier.

They'll probably go with the read they like best. It's the actress's job to come in and convince the producers she's the right person for the part. It's kind of a "you know it when you see it" thing. A good actress can do that. The problem with Belknap is that they cast her after a bad audition--always a mistake.

A lot of people have a say in casting though. Not the writers--the writers who are executive producers do, but the writers don't have any say. The problem is that the EPs aren't the only ones with say--the studio and the network have a say, too. A lot of hands in the pot, and sometimes that doesn't result in the best choice. Usually it does--as I've said before, I think the rest of the cast is excellent, so I'm pretty confident Kaye Sullivan will be, too. In my eyes, Belknap is the exception to the rule. She's the only miscast I've seen on all three shows. In a series regular role at least--some of those stunt casting guest stars have been pretty bad!

Hmmm....lol, it sounds ridiculously political. And it's kind of unfair that the studio has a role in the casting, when they have no idea exactly who the character is supposed to be yet. But I do have to point out what you said about Belknap's bad audition...you realize this literally means that every other actress that showed up on the audition days was worse than Belknap at the part? :lol: I still don't have a problem with Belknap's acting, but it just seems more like Belknap is the exception to the rule because in all three shows (I think), Lindsay was the only regular character written with very 2D Mary-Sue connotations? I mean, even Calleigh, originally written as a similarly-bubbly southern girl, had dimensions to her character from the very first. Then again, Calleigh may have been planned out from the start of the show, before they started casting.

 

[Top41]

Personally, I think Belknap handled the emotional stuff pretty well, with the exception of some scenes in S3. But that is just my opinion.

I think she was better in seasons four and five with the emotional material, but I think part of that is that she was given less of it to deal with.

Maya316 you do have a point about testing the skills of the actress in the areas that she is being cast for...cute, bubbly, inquisitive, etc. However, even though they say they are going to be more character driven in S6, it is still a procedural show and that being said, I can understand them focusing more on the actress' ability to handle the scientific jargon and the police end of it. I know most everyone loved Vanssa Ferlito as Aiden, but personally, every time I watched her in the lab she jarred me out of the scene because she was so nervous around the evidence and machines. If you watch closely, her hands shook every time and she never looked like she was comfortable doing her job. That made it hard for me to take her seriously as a character.

I admit I didn't notice that, but Aiden was supposed to be relatively new at her job, so that nervousness could have been part of that. I remember how excited she was at getting to use the facial reconstruction technology (a sad irony when thought about in the context of "Heroes") and how she got intimidated in "Officer Blue." I found her portrayal of a relatively new CSI pretty realistic.

The fact that we have characters like Danny and Don and Adam (for which I cannot possibly concieve of anyone else playing the parts except Carmine, Eddie and AJ) is a bonus that is rarely duplicated. Even in a huge cast like ER over 15 (?) years, I can think of only two characters, Dr. Green and Dr. Carter, that I can't possibly see being played by anyone other than Anthony Edwards and Noah Wyle. I just don't think it happens all that frequently. It would be wonderful for it to happen again on CSI:NY but I'm not holding my breath and will count it as a wonderful bonus if it does occur.

Carmine, Eddie and AJ are definitely gold--as are Gary, Melina, Hill and Robert. There's really been a good job done with casting overall for the show--just one misstep in my book. So I'm curious to see who they'll get for Kaye, and hopeful that it will be someone good.

And I agree with you that it seemed a stretch for Sid to talk about his history with Jess, but I took that as one of those things I just have to swallow as happening off screen and an effort by the writers to include everyone in the finale and to give Sid a place in the cliffhanger. When they said goodbye to Aiden, only the immediate team was there and I think they included Flack in the scene.

Flack had been close to Aiden, and worked with her often in season one.

 

[Top41]

I guess...although (and I'm probably gonna come back to this later) I really think the rule might've been different at the start of CSI:NY. It always hits me like the characters the show started out with - Mac, Stella, Flack, Danny, even Aiden, not Hawkes so much but to an extent - were thought out much more carefully than the newer characters which have been brought in over the years. They all strike me as though they were alive on the page before the actors themselves brought them to life. The actors did add their own dimension, and the writers developed them over the years, but for the most part no matter what their storylines have been, they're the same, believable people that they were at the beginning of the show. They're consistent. The other characters aren't, not so much.

The characters cast when the show first aired were initially better drawn out, I'm sure. But at the same time, they were new characters and as others have pointed out, kind of stock ones as well--work-obsessed widower, orphan who's found a family at work, cute hothead with a mysterious past, gruff NYC cop who comes from a family of cops, etc. What made the characters unique was good writing and nuanced acting.

The newer characters, I can't help but feel that they were all signed on after auditions like this one, and like you saidthe actors were left to make their own a role that they were only given later, after the audition. Which may be the job of an actor, but doesn't exactly seem fair when the casting people don't do their job either. Adam, I love him and Buckley does an excellent job with him, but he's not exactly original - he's frighteningly reminiscent of early-days Greg from CSI. It's like the writers slapped his character together at the last minute. Robert Joy was so the one to add that element of endearing creepiness to Sid's character, because it's clear the writers didn't put much thought into the character of the ME. It was clear when the ME was Hawkes, which, though Harper does great with the part, still shows today.

Exactly--Buckley and Joy took rather stock characters and made them unique. The writers gave them great lines and interesting nuggets of backstory to work with, and they ran with them.

Belknap, I think, added her own element to the Mary-Sue-ish character she was given (this, more than anything, is what's making me cringe about Kaye Sullivan - I really don't see what else another actress would be able to do).

Eh, can't agree there. She was flat/stock for most of her first season, and Belknap couldn't handle the many personality shifts of the character as the writers tried to define her. She was different in each episode. She finally settled into a somewhat brittle, sometimes enthusiastic (if she likes the job she's doing) unremarkable character.

As, I think, did Emmanuelle Vaugier.

I always really liked Vaugier's delivery of her lines. There was a certain dry wit to them that belied the character's sharpness.

Hmmm....lol, it sounds ridiculously political. And it's kind of unfair that the studio has a role in the casting, when they have no idea exactly who the character is supposed to be yet.

Well, they read the scripts and the descriptions--but they also know what they want in the look of a character. For instance, in season two, there was a clear mandate to lighten up the show. Visually, they changed the sets and the lighting. Cast-wise, they got rid of the dark ethnic girl and brought in the whitebread Middle American girl.

But I do have to point out what you said about Belknap's bad audition...you realize this literally means that every other actress that showed up on the audition days was worse than Belknap at the part? :lol:

LOL, no, she said Hill put in a good word for her. Clout helps in Hollywood, and it's true that who you know is as important as how you perform. Even more so, often.

I still don't have a problem with Belknap's acting, but it just seems more like Belknap is the exception to the rule because in all three shows (I think), Lindsay was the only regular character written with very 2D Mary-Sue connotations? I mean, even Calleigh, originally written as a similarly-bubbly southern girl, had dimensions to her character from the very first. Then again, Calleigh may have been planned out from the start of the show, before they started casting.

I still think that it's the acting more than the writing these days with Lindsay. Imagine what Emily Procter could have done with that dark secret storyline. Look what Melina did with "All Access," which was essentially a slasher flick. Worst episode ever in my book--but Melina was great in it.

 

[Maya316]

Posted by CSI_Cupcake:
Maya316 you do have a point about testing the skills of the actress in the areas that she is being cast for...cute, bubbly, inquisitive, etc. However, even though they say they are going to be more character driven in S6, it is still a procedural show and that being said, I can understand them focusing more on the actress' ability to handle the scientific jargon and the police end of it. I know most everyone loved Vanssa Ferlito as Aiden, but personally, every time I watched her in the lab she jarred me out of the scene because she was so nervous around the evidence and machines. If you watch closely, her hands shook every time and she never looked like she was comfortable doing her job. That made it hard for me to take her seriously as a character.

Yes! This is almost exactly my point. I'm still under the impression that the range and quality of the acting is not really what's demanded from the actors on these shows, and things like this just seem to confirm that for me. They're not looking for someone who can be Kaye Sullivan, they're looking for someone who can pass as a credible CSI. They probably don't have Sullivan's character fleshed out yet, but if it was at all about the character, I think they'd wait to start casting until the writers were finished with her.

I don't know about Vanessa Ferlito's jitteriness - I never noticed, but I did love her as Aiden. I took her seriously not so much for her abilities as a CSI, but more because it was obvious from the first who she was, and I liked it. Slightly-aloof, cynical, sarcastic, yet with a compassionate side and desire to prove herself, born-and-raised-in-Brooklyn - it just seemed like the writers put so much more work into her, and knew who they were looking for when they cast Ferlito. That's why I was sad to see her leave.

The fact that we have characters like Danny and Don and Adam (for which I cannot possibly concieve of anyone else playing the parts except Carmine, Eddie and AJ) is a bonus that is rarely duplicated. Even in a huge cast like ER over 15 (?) years, I can think of only two characters, Dr. Green and Dr. Carter, that I can't possibly see being played by anyone other than Anthony Edwards and Noah Wyle. I just don't think it happens all that frequently. It would be wonderful for it to happen again on CSI:NY but I'm not holding my breath and will count it as a wonderful bonus if it does occur.

I guess that sometimes, there is that once-in-a-blue-moon audition where the right person shows up for just the right part....but for me, it's not just Danny and Flack (though AJ, I'll agree, seems to have been one of those auditions). I mean, I literally can't imagine anyone else playing the part of Mac, or Stella, or Hawkes. In the other CSI shows, I can't picture anyone else playing Grissom or Greg or Catherine or Sara or Warrick (Nick I'm a little iffy on, but I've never been a huge fan of his). And definitely, Brass. I can't quite believe that all of them were once-in-a-blue-moon auditions, I think the casting-people already had at least mostly-realized characters in mind when they cast these people.

And I agree with you that it seemed a stretch for Sid to talk about his history with Jess, but I took that as one of those things I just have to swallow as happening off screen and an effort by the writers to include everyone in the finale and to give Sid a place in the cliffhanger. When they said goodbye to Aiden, only the immediate team was there and I think they included Flack in the scene.

Yeah, it was hard for me to swallow, but I did accept that it happened offscreen. It was easier for me to buy the goodbye-to-Aiden (lol, also loved) because there, at least, they talked about something that had happened in S1, and I bought Flack being there because he and Aiden seemed to have a fairly strong friendship. I do feel Angell's hero-worship only happened offscreen because the writers suddenly needed it to, in order to fit Angell into the family dynamic. But do I believe she naturally fit into the team family dynamic? No, because I never once saw her during the random team-moments we've seen through this season. She hadn't even met Adam before.

 

[JellyBelly]

A good actress can do that. The problem with Belknap is that they cast her after a bad audition--always a mistake.

I have to say I think it highly unlikely they thought her audition was bad. While AB's self deprecating comments are pure gold if you're of the opinion that she never should have been cast in the first place, I really can't see her being hired if they believed she had so little to offer.

Personally, I think Belknap handled the emotional stuff pretty well, with the exception of some scenes in S3. But that is just my opinion.

Agreed. I think her season 3 crying scenes were a little awkward but I thought she nailed the s4 monologue and the s5 pregnancy reveal.

I know most everyone loved Vanssa Ferlito as Aiden, but personally, every time I watched her in the lab she jarred me out of the scene because she was so nervous around the evidence and machines. If you watch closely, her hands shook every time and she never looked like she was comfortable doing her job. That made it hard for me to take her seriously as a character.

While I didn't see a particular nervousness about her, she certainly struck me as out of place in the lab. I think that's because there was no effort to make her look the part in the lab, not least with her hair which was always all over the place (beautiful in any other context though).

 

[Top41]

Yes! This is almost exactly my point. I'm still under the impression that the range and quality of the acting is not really what's demanded from the actors on these shows, and things like this just seem to confirm that for me. They're not looking for someone who can be Kaye Sullivan, they're looking for someone who can pass as a credible CSI. They probably don't have Sullivan's character fleshed out yet, but if it was at all about the character, I think they'd wait to start casting until the writers were finished with her.

I don't think they really have the luxury to do that, though. Sounds like they need to cast her by the time they start filming the season premiere, which from what I hear is mid-July. I don't think it's a bad test of the actress's range...obviously, they want to find someone good with a decent range. A good actress will come in, get a handle on the role and run with it.

A good actress can do that. The problem with Belknap is that they cast her after a bad audition--always a mistake.

I have to say I think it highly unlikely they thought her audition was bad. While AB's self deprecating comments are pure gold if you're of the opinion that she never should have been cast in the first place, I really can't see her being hired if they believed she had so little to offer.

No actress is going to say her audition was bad if it wasn't. I'm sure they thought she did have something to offer, otherwise they wouldn't have hired her. But the fact that she hasn't been given a storyline outside of Danny's drama or not sparked by her own real life pregnancy since season three tells me her detractors aren't that off base. She botched the season three storyline all on her own.

I do agree she did better in seasons four and five--but she was handed less weighty material to deal with.

 

[Maya316]

The characters cast when the show first aired were initially better drawn out, I'm sure. But at the same time, they were new characters and as others have pointed out, kind of stock ones as well--work-obsessed widower, orphan who's found a family at work, cute hothead with a mysterious past, gruff NYC cop who comes from a family of cops, etc. What made the characters unique was good writing and nuanced acting.

True, they were all kind of stock from the beginning, though I think in general those kinds of stereotypes are easier to work with than that of Lindsay Monroe's. I mean, work-obsessed widower practically tells a story right there. [Immediate questions: how much did he care about his wife? Why is his work so easy to get lost in? (which gets into the Marine background). How did he lose his wife, does the unfairness of it all do anything to drive his character, his passion at his job? ] And you just take it from there. Gruff NYC cop from a family of cops - it also writes its own story. Is he lost in his family's shadow? How badly does he want to make a name for himself? Does it influence his integrity in a good or bad way?

Lindsay's stereotype was what...perky, short Montana chick moves to the big city? And you know she has to be endearing and cute to all on the show, so she'll be attractive to the cute hothead with the gangster-ish past (it's beyond infuriating, but we all know there's only one reason Lindsay Monroe was even written into the storyline at all - by the way, I should point out cute hothead with a gangster-ish past is another stereotype that's easier to run with). Where are the questions in that? Maybe 'why did she move', 'how is she handling life in the big city'...but we saw Belknap try to push those questions as far as they could go, which wasn't far at all.

Maybe what I mean more is that...the writers put more effort into the kinds of stock characters they were going to look for at the beginning of the show?

Exactly--Buckley and Joy took rather stock characters and made them unique. The writers gave them great lines and interesting nuggets of backstory to work with, and they ran with them.

Also true... though I agree more in Joy's case than in Buckley's (more because Adam's stereotype, though re-used, is likewise very easy to run with). Most of Sid's lines from S2 didn't seem like they were meant to give Sid the creepy-undertaker undertone that Joy gave them. But honestly, in his earlier days, however entertainingly-creepy he was, Sid wasn't much of a character. He was fairly 2D. This, I think, was the constraint of the part.

Eh, can't agree there. She was flat/stock for most of her first season, and Belknap couldn't handle the many personality shifts of the character as the writers tried to define her. She was different in each episode. She finally settled into a somewhat brittle, sometimes enthusiastic (if she likes the job she's doing) unremarkable character.

I don't know, I saw the coldness from the first time I watched S2 from start to finish. Which I thought was there on purpose. But if she did go through personality shifts that seemed OOC, that seems to say more about the writing of the character than the actress - tells me the writers hadn't really thought about who Lindsay Monroe was going to be, despite throwing her into a main-supporting role.

I always really liked Vaugier's delivery of her lines. There was a certain dry wit to them that belied the character's sharpness.

It belied something, though I disagree that it was the character's sharpness. I think Vaugier did great with what she had, but I have to say she didn't have a lot to begin with.

Well, they read the scripts and the descriptions--but they also know what they want in the look of a character. For instance, in season two, there was a clear mandate to lighten up the show. Visually, they changed the sets and the lighting. Cast-wise, they got rid of the dark ethnic girl and brought in the whitebread Middle American girl.

I thought Ferlito left on her own? Although I guess they could've cast another ethnic girl as her replacement, but I don't know how I'd feel on Aiden's behalf if that was the case.

LOL, no, she said Hill put in a good word for her. Clout helps in Hollywood, and it's true that who you know is as important as how you perform. Even more so, often.

Hahahaha, are you serious?:lol: Have to find more of these actor-interviews. At the same time, if Belknap actually is as bad as you say, I can't believe they would shaft an actually-good/better actress for her. I could understand if she were just going to be a recurring character, but a main one? That the writers are actively pushing the audience to like?

I still think that it's the acting more than the writing these days with Lindsay. Imagine what Emily Procter could have done with that dark secret storyline. Look what Melina did with "All Access," which was essentially a slasher flick. Worst episode ever in my book--but Melina was great in it.

I agree about All Access. Stella was already a strong believable character without that, though I have to disagree about Melina's prowess at acting the emotional scenes. She wasn't bad, per se, but I didn't find her believable. Maybe that's just me, though, and my personal image of the way Stella would respond in such a situation. I liked her scenes with Frankie well enough, but not the ones in the hospital.

 

[JellyBelly]

No actress is going to say her audition was bad if it wasn't.

Why not? Acting is no different to any other profession and who hasn't thought they've performed badly in an interview or something similar but have then been successful? I question the wisdom of her saying that in an interview but as I said, to me it was more self deprecating rather than a literal comment.

 

[Top41]

True, they were all kind of stock from the beginning, though I think in general those kinds of stereotypes are easier to work with than that of Lindsay Monroe's. I mean, work-obsessed widower practically tells a story right there. [Immediate questions: how much did he care about his wife? Why is his work so easy to get lost in? (which gets into the Marine background). How did he lose his wife, does the unfairness of it all do anything to drive his character, his passion at his job? ] And you just take it from there. Gruff NYC cop from a family of cops - it also writes its own story. Is he lost in his family's shadow? How badly does he want to make a name for himself? Does it influence his integrity in a good or bad way?

Lindsay's stereotype was what...perky, short Montana chick moves to the big city? And you know she has to be endearing and cute to all on the show, so she'll be attractive to the cute hothead with the gangster-ish past (it's beyond infuriating, but we all know there's only one reason Lindsay Monroe was even written into the storyline at all - by the way, I should point out cute hothead with a gangster-ish past is another stereotype that's easier to run with). Where are the questions in that? Maybe 'why did she move', 'how is she handling life in the big city'...but we saw Belknap try to push those questions as far as they could go, which wasn't far at all.

Well, that's only half of her backstory, though...the other half being "survived a horrible tragedy in her past" which brings up at least as much material as "work-obsessed widower" and "gruff NYC cop from a family of cops." The dark secret was a decent backstory, but Belknap bungled it.

Maybe what I mean more is that...the writers put more effort into the kinds of stock characters they were going to look for at the beginning of the show?

I think they were intentionally trying to make her different--I mean, look, four seasons down the road and we're still getting Montana references. The problem is that Belknap never really inhabited that country girl backstory, so we have to be constantly reminded that she's "from Montana"...as though Montana is outer space.

Also true... though I agree more in Joy's case than in Buckley's (more because Adam's stereotype, though re-used, is likewise very easy to run with).

AJ said he added inflection and nuance to the character based on one line he was given in his first episode. It's a line on the paper--Buckley decided how he was going to deliver that line, and ran with it. He's the one character that I really don't think would be a regular if he hadn't wowed the audience and producers alike.

Most of Sid's lines from S2 didn't seem like they were meant to give Sid the creepy-undertaker undertone that Joy gave them. But honestly, in his earlier days, however entertainingly-creepy he was, Sid wasn't much of a character. He was fairly 2D. This, I think, was the constraint of the part.

But again, Joy added something to the delivery of his lines that made the writers want to write for him. So Sid got fleshed out.

I don't know, I saw the coldness from the first time I watched S2 from start to finish. Which I thought was there on purpose. But if she did go through personality shifts that seemed OOC, that seems to say more about the writing of the character than the actress - tells me the writers hadn't really thought about who Lindsay Monroe was going to be, despite throwing her into a main-supporting role.

I wonder how much of that coldness was Lindsay and how much was Belknap, though. I thought Lindsay was supposed to be warm and enthusiastic--one can still be guarded without being cold. I agree that they were trying to find out who she was, but by the time they figured it out late season two/early season three, Belknap's acting should have gotten better, not worse.

It belied something, though I disagree that it was the character's sharpness. I think Vaugier did great with what she had, but I have to say she didn't have a lot to begin with.

Not a lot, maybe, but I liked her sass and how to-the-point she was.

I thought Ferlito left on her own? Although I guess they could've cast another ethnic girl as her replacement, but I don't know how I'd feel on Aiden's behalf if that was the case.

Well, they replaced Alexx on CSI: Miami with another African-American woman...I don't think that was a bad thing. Regardless, I think the intent was to put in a character who was not from New York--a part of lightening up the show.

Hahahaha, are you serious?:lol: Have to find more of these actor-interviews. At the same time, if Belknap actually is as bad as you say, I can't believe they would shaft an actually-good/better actress for her. I could understand if she were just going to be a recurring character, but a main one? That the writers are actively pushing the audience to like?

I imagine they thought she'd be better than her audition.

I agree about All Access. Stella was already a strong believable character without that, though I have to disagree about Melina's prowess at acting the emotional scenes. She wasn't bad, per se, but I didn't find her believable. Maybe that's just me, though, and my personal image of the way Stella would respond in such a situation. I liked her scenes with Frankie well enough, but not the ones in the hospital.

It's been a while since I've seen the ep--I really hated that episode like no other! I found it to be a gratuitous piece that glamorized violence against women--but I thought Melina and Eddie were excellent in their scenes together in the hospital. The only good thing about the ep in my book, lol.

No actress is going to say her audition was bad if it wasn't.

Why not? Acting is no different to any other profession and who hasn't thought they've performed badly in an interview or something similar but have then been successful? I question the wisdom of her saying that in an interview but as I said, to me it was more self deprecating rather than a literal comment.

Why would one ever say, "I did a poor job in my chosen profession." Maybe to a family member, yeah, but in an interview? I don't think it was self-deprecating. Why would she need Hill to put in a good word for her if her audition was great and she was just being modest?

 

[Maya316]

I don't think they really have the luxury to do that, though. Sounds like they need to cast her by the time they start filming the season premiere, which from what I hear is mid-July. I don't think it's a bad test of the actress's range...obviously, they want to find someone good with a decent range. A good actress will come in, get a handle on the role and run with it.

Yeah, I think a good actress could do that, but the handle on the role...that's the tricky thing, when the role isn't very defined even by a slapdash, 2D standard. And it's not a bad range, but they're not testing the actress on even the elementary things that are supposed to define Kaye Sullivan's character. They won't know if she's a good actress for that part (or not) until it's too late. I know they don't have a lot of time, but if that's the case...:scream: they shouldn't be adding the character to begin with. I still don't have a problem with Belknap, but if they're cutting corners like this, how are they not going to end up with a similar divisive choice?


Sorry if I double posted!

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I think new characters are not always immediate hits, the writers do need time to flesh out the characters a bit and also get the feel of how the actor or actress carries the role.

Kind of like Ducky or Abby on NCIS. In their JAG intro, the personality quirks for that matter were not as evident. Abby was very goth, but she wasn't the bubbly awesome funny gothic lab girl that she is now after 6 seasons or even back in season 1. As with Ducky, the character started out rather strange and somewhat creepy-ish before they sort of settled on Ducky being a quirky ME but with a rather grandfather-ish feeling.

I guess in the end, it's really all down to the acting. What they need to cast is an actor/actress who can bring this character to life, like the character stepped off the pages of the script. Not just playing a character, but make that role his/her own and breath life into it. If the acting is not well, then to be honest, writing doesn't matter all that much.

 

[JellyBelly]

Why would one ever say, "I did a poor job in my chosen profession." Maybe to a family member, yeah, but in an interview? I don't think it was self-deprecating. Why would she need Hill to put in a good word for her if her audition was great and she was just being modest?

Exactly, why would they say that in all seriousness? Which is why I've always taken that comment as a joke, even more so because of the whole 'Hill having to put in a good word'. I think AB comes across light and jokey in interviews that I've seen, I don't think that necessarily transfers well to the written word.

 

[Top41]

Why would one ever say, "I did a poor job in my chosen profession." Maybe to a family member, yeah, but in an interview? I don't think it was self-deprecating. Why would she need Hill to put in a good word for her if her audition was great and she was just being modest?

Exactly, why would they say that in all seriousness? Which is why I've always taken that comment as a joke, even more so because of the whole 'Hill having to put in a good word'. I think AB comes across light and jokey in interviews that I've seen, I don't think that necessarily transfers well to the written word.

It didn't strike me as a joke, and if someone is going to joke in an interview, it's generally not about their audition sucking.

This is the quote:

After my first audition, I felt really bad about it, so I was like, "Hill, tell them I'm not that bad!" and he put a nice word in for me which was very sweet.

From here.

I'm sure her audition wasn't horrendous. But from what I've witnessed on screen, I can't think it was excellent, either.