Dear Writers,
I know I (and many others) used to bitch that you guys always had two cases in every episode and rarely did one-case episodes. But now you rarely do multiple cases in an episode unless they are somehow linked to each other (such as "Enough"). I like when there's a case and something personal acts as a second case, so to speak (such as Flack and Sam in "Dead Inside"), but I think it would be nice if you also threw in some of those good old A and B-case episodes as well.
Having two simpler cases, without all of the super-kewl gadgetry*, would be a nice way to mix things up, and they could be alternated with one-case episodes as well as one-case episodes with a personal side-story. (Translation: Variety Is Good)
* Let's be honest - while the shiny lab toys are fun, I don't watch the show to see an unrealistic use of the lastest real technology (or an unrealistic use of fake or theoretical technology, for that matter) every week. Having that stuff sometimes is cool, having it
all of the time seems like trying to compensate for the writing with a brand new Shiny to distract viewers.
Overall, I think some simpler, less contrived storylines would be nice too. There doesn't always have to be a Shiny new bit of technology for the team to have on hand precisely when it's convenient, or some one-in-ten-zillion medical condition, or a database for everything under the sun. Sometimes, good old detective work and a bit of ballistics matching could do the trick.
You claim to be a more character-driven series than the other two in the CSI franchise, but Danny and Lindsay procreating doesn't cut it. You brought in Flack's sister, which was awesome, and then gave her (and Flack) a big, interesting storyline - which you promptly dropped. You might bring it up next season, but seriously - continuity can be managed much better than you're managing it.
CSI:NY is a procedural drama with a few serial elements, I get that - a procedural is good as far as repeats go, and people can feel better about missing a week because they won't be lost if they don't see every episode. However, there are a lot of crime shows out there, and the tried-and-true procedural model that has worked for the CSI series all these years is starting to wear thin. I don't personally think it would be a bad thing to include more long-term story arcs, or to follow through with personal stories in a more consistent way. (What ever happened to Reed? And dare I mention Louie?)
Also, stunt casting is not "hip". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - and when it doesn't, the quality of the show can suffer for trying to make a singer into an actor for the sake of ratings. Plus, that kind of casting only does so much - you might get a few more viewers that week, but the ratings tend to drop back to the normal level afterwards. Do flash in the pan ratings really mean that much? You can't have stunt casting or a Big Event gimmick (like a wedding) every week to pimp out and try to entice viewers to tune in. If you're going to go for stunt casting, at least aim higher than flavor-of-the-week (or flavor-of-last-week) "celebrities". Maybe go for actors of a caliber that would lend some respect and legitimacy to the show. You've done it a few times, but it's hard to remember those episodes when Pete and Ashlee Simpson-Wentz are at the forefront of your mind.
CSI:NY consistently wins its timeslot, which is good - and it consistently gets 12 or 13 million viewers, which is nothing to sneeze at these days. However, it always seems to be facing an uphill battle to compete with the other members of the franchise as well as the multitude of other shows (many of them crime dramas) littering the TV landscape. The way to make CSI:NY stand out from the crowd (in a good way) is not adding crap guest stars - if star power is all it takes, I should think Gary Sinise would be all you'd need, and he clearly isn't. I also don't think The First Franchise Baby! (And It's Not Illigitimate!) is going to elevate CSI:NY above "The Mentalist" and other shows that viewers gravitate toward - especially if you do a hack job of writing in the little bundle of hype.
Unfortunately, as much as I have loved CSI:NY all these years - and even called it my favorite show despite my personal issues with the series - the show is just mediocre compared to many other programs out there. You've got some majorly talented actors (hello, Eddie Cahill? Hill freakin' Harper?), and yet the show doesn't seem to pull ahead of the pack in any way. There are other crime shows out there - and they do an arguably better job of solving crimes. There are other shows out there with Teh Romantz - and they do an arguably better job of writing and developing it. There are other shows out there that do a better job of showing camaraderie between the characters - the list goes on.
CSI:NY remains a solid, steady series. It's reliable. It's like my old 1993 Mercury Sable (aka Pearl the granny car) - the plush blue seat is comfortable and familiar, you can rely on her to start when you turn the key in the ignition, she gets you easily from point A to point B, and you know how she's going to handle when you get behind the wheel. But sticking some shiny gizmos on the hood or tossing Ashlee Simpson in the back seat isn't likely to make her more appealing to people who don't already love her - certainly not when there are more exciting cars out there that do the same job with better gas mileage.
Love, because my granny car
does still do the job,
Fay
I didn't mean to ramble - I just came in here to talk about the A and B-case thing - but there you go.
