LV: Overall Show & Writer Discussion *No Spoilers*
- Thread starter Destiny
- Start date
mrb105
Pathologist
I def. think the pressure of Grey's probably gave them the idea of the Mini Killer. They realized they have to come up with a way to give people something to talk about other then GSR (the only episode to episode carryover storyline). So I think that is how they came up with the Mini Killer idea.
ANd as you can see, a lot of us disagree on the good and bad episodes of the season. I really like "Fallen Idols," and didn't like "Living Legend" that much. It was too predictable and unrealistic to me. I also didn't like "Burn Out" the first time, but when I watched it a second I loved it.
I agree Warrick has taken a backseat to everyone this season and last. What have we had? 3 Warrick centric storylines in the history of the show? Him gambling for the judge, when he was into that musician who did heroine, and Random Acts of Violence.
I think Sarah Goldfinger is real young too, like early 30's. She is very impressive.
ANd as you can see, a lot of us disagree on the good and bad episodes of the season. I really like "Fallen Idols," and didn't like "Living Legend" that much. It was too predictable and unrealistic to me. I also didn't like "Burn Out" the first time, but when I watched it a second I loved it.
I agree Warrick has taken a backseat to everyone this season and last. What have we had? 3 Warrick centric storylines in the history of the show? Him gambling for the judge, when he was into that musician who did heroine, and Random Acts of Violence.
I think Sarah Goldfinger is real young too, like early 30's. She is very impressive.
beaujolais
Lab Technician
Brass is another character who's gotten the shaft by the writers this season. The season ended with him nearly dying. When S7 started, PG said that Brass's recovery would be an ongoing thing but apparently no one told the writers because he got a tattoo and that was it. He got the Nick treatment of S6. Both Nick and Brass went through a lot. You'd think their characters would have some after-affect but no, everything is puppies and sunshine.
mrb105
Pathologist
I'm not real suprised to see the Brass treatment this season. He has still been very funny, and Season 6 was more centric on him then any other characters. He had a Bullet Runs Through It & the final two episodes focused on him. But for some reason these actors always feel like they are gonna get more out of their character, and that just hasn't been the case.
Here's my thing: I know that there's nostalgia about the earlier seasons, and it's natural to think that the writers who have left had something that made the show what it once was. And that's very likely true.
BUT... Miami and New York are not as good as Las Vegas. And that's where those other writers went. If they were so much better, I don't think that Miami would be caught in the sinkhole it is now, and I think New York would be more interesting.
See, here's where I disagree: yes, CSI's strength was in its individuality to each episode. But Season 6, to me, proved that they couldn't keep doing it. 6 was boring because you started to feel like you were just going through the motions. The problem is that, forgetting even the rip-offs, this show has two other legitimate spinoffs, and no one is wowed by forensics alone anymore. That leaves you with cases. There are 3 major Law and Orders, as well as a host of ripoffs there as well. Cases aren't necessarily going to leave everyone speechless, unless you do it differently than anyone else.
They're finding their sealegs with a more serialized aspect, but at the same time I think that they could've done a lot worse here. I'm still enjoying it, and yes, I do think that it could've been wrapped up earlier, but honestly I'm just happy that it feels like I'm watching CSI and not any number of other shows. And 6 didn't focus enough on the characters or unique cases for it to stand out.
BUT... Miami and New York are not as good as Las Vegas. And that's where those other writers went. If they were so much better, I don't think that Miami would be caught in the sinkhole it is now, and I think New York would be more interesting.
See, here's where I disagree: yes, CSI's strength was in its individuality to each episode. But Season 6, to me, proved that they couldn't keep doing it. 6 was boring because you started to feel like you were just going through the motions. The problem is that, forgetting even the rip-offs, this show has two other legitimate spinoffs, and no one is wowed by forensics alone anymore. That leaves you with cases. There are 3 major Law and Orders, as well as a host of ripoffs there as well. Cases aren't necessarily going to leave everyone speechless, unless you do it differently than anyone else.
They're finding their sealegs with a more serialized aspect, but at the same time I think that they could've done a lot worse here. I'm still enjoying it, and yes, I do think that it could've been wrapped up earlier, but honestly I'm just happy that it feels like I'm watching CSI and not any number of other shows. And 6 didn't focus enough on the characters or unique cases for it to stand out.
quoth_the_raven
Corpse
I wasn't a huge fan of season six but I love this season, it's given me everything I've been waiting for: more development of the characters, insight, drama, angst, and lovable storylines. I've been able to follow this season with anticipation of the next episode ("what's going to happen next??"). I really think the writers have found their pace with this season and have turned it into gold. I loved the idea of Keppler coming in and I've been a big fan of the MCSK plot line.
But with me, as long as Sarah Goldfinger keeps writing I'm good
But with me, as long as Sarah Goldfinger keeps writing I'm good
Elsie
Shopaholic
I still enjoy CSI, but I have felt that the last two seasons have been lacking the spark that really kept my interest in it. And I'm left wondering where exactly the writers are planning to go with it, if anywhere?
This season's writing has, in my opinion (and rather generalised), focused on the mini killer, or personal issues and problems that specific characters have had at the expense of the old true procedural episodes with a proper A and B case, which first got CSI noticed all those years ago. The mini killer storyline could have been wrapped up months ago, apart from the cute miniature scenes that said killer has made, it just hasn't been interesting enough to warrant a full season arc.
I fully agree with this. I love watching (often) random reruns of CSI episodes and find very little problem or confusion in doing so, and whilst killers have previously appeared in more than one episode and there have been previous cases that impact on an episode it has always seemed to me that the episodes could stand independently. I'm not sure that the same can be said for all of season 7. I'm with maple, season 4 all the way! In fact looking back at seasons 2/3/4, they are all fantastic entire seasons, not always fully inspiring or particularly special plotlines, but consistent and highly watchable.
I think CSI would benefit from going back to it's procedural roots, make it about the cases again, about finding the evidence and catching the bad guy. Not about a nemesis, poorly thought out plots and personal demons.
With regard to continuity. There was a time when I would have been the first to say 'Nick was hard done by' and that tptb got it wrong. But I have changed my opinion somewhat in recent weeks. Obviously continuity really is the key to gaining some viewer respect for any show, I think they do handle continuity with the storylines up to a point, and that focusing on the cases may be a better use of the limited episode time. Everyone wants to know that the characters are getting better, receiving help or whatever, but I think most viewers like the action and intensity of the episode but would prefer their CSI's to revert back to type at the end of the day. Taking Greg as an example, being beaten and involved in a trial was extremely stressful, but most Greg fans don't want to see him turned into a shadow of his former self, losing what makes him great because of this incident, but would prefer the character to move on and progress. I personally think the writers have got this aspect of the show correct and at least it is something they are consistent with.
For me, part of the problem lays with the different writers and how they seem to work together. Many people seem to have their favourite writers, and you know what to expect from them. In the past as a procedural show with each episode pretty much standalone this worked well, but in changing the format, creating relationships and long running story arcs it makes some episodes appear disjointed or out of place. And in my conclusion, season 7 in part has been mismatched and disappointing because of it. And I really do wonder, after trying something new and potentially falling flat, where is there left to go for CSI?
And if you managed to read all of that, more power to you! Sorry, it wasn't meant to be that long.
This season's writing has, in my opinion (and rather generalised), focused on the mini killer, or personal issues and problems that specific characters have had at the expense of the old true procedural episodes with a proper A and B case, which first got CSI noticed all those years ago. The mini killer storyline could have been wrapped up months ago, apart from the cute miniature scenes that said killer has made, it just hasn't been interesting enough to warrant a full season arc.
I fully agree with this. I love watching (often) random reruns of CSI episodes and find very little problem or confusion in doing so, and whilst killers have previously appeared in more than one episode and there have been previous cases that impact on an episode it has always seemed to me that the episodes could stand independently. I'm not sure that the same can be said for all of season 7. I'm with maple, season 4 all the way! In fact looking back at seasons 2/3/4, they are all fantastic entire seasons, not always fully inspiring or particularly special plotlines, but consistent and highly watchable.
I think CSI would benefit from going back to it's procedural roots, make it about the cases again, about finding the evidence and catching the bad guy. Not about a nemesis, poorly thought out plots and personal demons.
With regard to continuity. There was a time when I would have been the first to say 'Nick was hard done by' and that tptb got it wrong. But I have changed my opinion somewhat in recent weeks. Obviously continuity really is the key to gaining some viewer respect for any show, I think they do handle continuity with the storylines up to a point, and that focusing on the cases may be a better use of the limited episode time. Everyone wants to know that the characters are getting better, receiving help or whatever, but I think most viewers like the action and intensity of the episode but would prefer their CSI's to revert back to type at the end of the day. Taking Greg as an example, being beaten and involved in a trial was extremely stressful, but most Greg fans don't want to see him turned into a shadow of his former self, losing what makes him great because of this incident, but would prefer the character to move on and progress. I personally think the writers have got this aspect of the show correct and at least it is something they are consistent with.
For me, part of the problem lays with the different writers and how they seem to work together. Many people seem to have their favourite writers, and you know what to expect from them. In the past as a procedural show with each episode pretty much standalone this worked well, but in changing the format, creating relationships and long running story arcs it makes some episodes appear disjointed or out of place. And in my conclusion, season 7 in part has been mismatched and disappointing because of it. And I really do wonder, after trying something new and potentially falling flat, where is there left to go for CSI?
And if you managed to read all of that, more power to you! Sorry, it wasn't meant to be that long.
From what I've heard about TV, it's a team sport. I'm under the assumption that all the writers work on the stories and scripts. So the success or failure of an episode can't be contributed to one writer. Looks like most of the writing staff have been together for a while. They know what they're doing. Seems like the directors that are always changing. In the long run it's probably them who end up making or breaking an eppi.
