Bringing Casey back was one of their ooh-ah bandied lures. I hafta think they'll continue on with resolving the cliff-hanger directly in some way. How they had planned to go about it has probably altered, though. I agree it should get its due. Would make all the preceding eps all the more superfluous if they don't.
Whatever they do, I guess pretty much all their plans for season 7 were altered
:lol: Not a lot of elbow room, no. I hope each gets a reasonable accommodation. I would appreciate if it was done in a way that made sense. IE. that the cliff-hanger isn't simply magicked thru NY's Peculiar Brand of Time. What are the odds :lol:. That said, I wasn't keen on the premise nor cliff-hangers in general, and so I'd rather it be wrapped sooner rather than later.
Exactly, what are the odds. It's like GfD when they cramped all that material into 45 minutes which made the beginning seem like flashbacks when Stella and Mac argued etc.
I'd love for Stella's exit not to be addressed in passing but given the weight of attention I as a viewer think it deserves, and think it an opportunity for the show to turn in some moving material. But. Do they develop a case around it, or have that going on incidentally and not tied to a case? How do they work it in?
I guess they could do great things with it. The problem is that there's not a lot of "great" that I can remember.
However, I think it'll be also difficult to do without MK present. The only thing they could probably do in that case would be having her disappear. Which I would like. That way they can decide later on if she's dead or not; they still have time to discuss a re-appearance of MK and if they really can't get her back they can still have her never be found or found dead at the very end of the show.
I like variety and this would also open up some great storylines and archs for the characters and following episodes. Though we're talking CSI NY here...
I'd love for the new character to be given a solid and supported introduction, meaning, a multi-ep integration. They did for Lindsay. They did for Sheldon's transition into the field.
True. Though Sheldon, I can only remember the first episode, not much about him being new to the field afterwards.
Lindsay... the same. I liked though how they introduced her. Liked that scene with Stella and how she searched for sth in the lab later
But episodes were better in general in season 2 than they are now
So, in a way, while I hope everything is acknowledged in the premiere, I don't necessarily hope or expect it all to be resolved outright.
I guess that would be the best and I would love a little chaos actually because they're all not adjusted yet to Stella being gone. That could be fun
I only said that Lindsay had potential as a character that has not been realized or developed in a way I have found interesting to watch. Part of the reason I have not found it interesting to watch is due the performance. I'll never know if a different interpretation of what was offered would have either changed how I have felt about the character or if it would have led to different material being developed as a result. Whatever the writing is, performance is far less often part of the equation with regards to other characters for me.
Then I misunderstood. Because, as you saw, it sounded like you were blaming AB for a dull Lindsay.
I have to agree, there were some episodes in which I wasn't impressed with her acting either. Not sure if they could have done more of her or if AB didn't bring more potential.
MK did though; they had done better episodes with her than a lot of season 6.
I also do agree that conversational references are a great tool, and additionally are often pleasant surprises when they acknowledge characters often thought to be dropped into the black hole of continuity never to be seen again. But it would also be nice to see characters thought to have disappointingly dropped into the black hole of continuity never to be seen again.
But that is exactly where the problem lies that I have. By dropping them into that hole, they make the character unnecessary. Would they bring them back and tied them into the show, they would have more of a purpose.
As I said with Sam Flack. They gave Flack a sister, so use her.
I also agree with what you said about liking Adam talk about his father, Sheldong about his uncle etc. However, I also would like that it would be addressed more. Not just because they needed a personal connection in one episode and afterwards it gets forgotten again.
Like with Stella, in episode 15 of the first season she was said to have lived in St. Basil's ever since she could remember, in episode 22 of season 3 though they needed her to have lived in foster care, so out the window it went that she lived in St. Basil's ever since she could remember and foster care it was.
I would have loved to see Sheldon being the main character in Yahrzeit. Not Mac. Because that was too forced in my eyes. Just to bring him into the focus but Sheldon would have been great. Stella would have worked to in connection with her past even.
It's how those things appear and disappear that I'm bothered about.
I didn't mind Mac meeting Aubrey. Don't. Want. The show. To be. About. His love life. I don't think S6 came across that way, and it certainly was not the only material he got. I think all the references to his family and hobbies/interests took up more far screen time than Aubrey did
. I think both avenues were tied into cases reasonably well.
Probably. I often felt like season 6 could have been called CSI: Mac instead of NY. He was so shoved into our faces at points. Not that I mind the visual...
Agreed with D/L because I had to laugh at some scenes because they were so "acted".
a) I think there has already been more of Aubrey's life history established than they bothered to devote to Peyton. I think it was nice to see and understand how and why Mac has felt drawn to Aubrey.
Yes but simply to shove into our face a connection with Mac so she can be closer to Mac and the love triangle makes sense: "Here I understand you, I was in Afghanistan, we have something (else) in common, don't you see."
Without that triangle we wouldn't have known nearly as much about Aubrey as we did with it.
Back somewhat to why not. Why not change up the dynamic and give characters something different to do now and then. And for that matter, why not try a different approach to a case and also have some fun with a bit of an homage?
As long as things make sense and then go back to "normal" I don't mind. But it's not just natural, as a human to suddenly change everything around either. You do change with time but other things don't change. You do have a routine. And dynamics between people is one of those things because unless you discover something drastic or have an argument, things don't change in a dramatic way. Of course, there was Angell's death, however, by mid-season things had gotten back to normal, mostly. So, no reason to change dynamics afterwards again.
And with CSI or any other TV show, there's a reason why people watch and if that reason is suddenly not there anymore or forgotten or whatever, well, CSI NY experienced first hand what happens then.
Peyton was no longer part of the ME's office. Having a non-cop, no-longer-NY-credentialed character poking about the apartment of someone she didn't want to suspect held more risk than a typical duo processing a scene.
But since you brought that up... that could be interpreted in quite an interesting way that Mac allows his ex-girlfriend to look around the apartment of someone he supects to have nerve gas without back-up or anyone who's armed close by...
Excuse me but what kind of pain-killers did Mac take? Or did he secretely hope he could get rid of Peyton that way or saw it as some kind of revenge?
Seriously though, I don't think any sane person would have done that. He saw what that gas did to that bird and how quickly.
That's curious. Haven't encountered that sentiment. I don't think NY is the most impersonal of the three, nor have I heard it referred to that way.
Impersonal? I would think it's the opposite.
You get a mention here about a background, a mention there in the other's. But NY established characters, "people". Which is what makes Stella's departure so "difficult" and upsetting for me.
For me, a mix of a character's history and interaction among the core group, on both personal and case related points helps all of them be more interesting and three-dimensional, and is how most of us got to know them in the first place; adding opportunities thru secondary characters is also fun; having a brand new leading character is going to open up a whole new array of possibilities to develop new material and revisit more established material thru a new lens.
I agree but I also think that they writers lost their grip on the characters sometime during season 5, it seemed and then they slipped even further in season 6 which makes it a pity. So many characters had so much more potential yet season 6, as I said, felt like it focused on Mac. The other characters did get their episodes, yes but somehow it felt like Mac was also always in the foreground and I didn't get that impression from the first few seasons.
Secondly, if you do establish characters and what CSI NY established continuity is even more important. Respecting the characters is more important and respecting the bonds and relationships you established between characters. If you focus on what CSI NY focuses on, you cannot take one step into that direction and the next day take a step into a different direction and go down that path. You can do that with CSI Vegas, because there's not so much personal information and while we did get a hint that Catherine liked Warrick in one or two episodes, it did take me completely by surprise when she confessed, well sort of, her feelings when Warrick got married.
NY seemed sort of aimless in season 6 and that's very bad for such a show that doesn't live, as you said, of the cases. I often felt, especially in season 5 and 6, that they were going down a path and suddenly became scared when they realized how far they had gone, ran away and desperately tried to find a new path so they wouldn't have to go the one that had scared them any further. Which though breaks the continuity and logic and is upsetting.
Having a new lead brings a lot of risks as well though because they established characters, as I said, "people" and viewers became attached. They made the individuals more important than those on CSI and Miami, so any departure will have more effect on CSI NY than on Vegas or Miami.
I think NY had its characters had and have so much potential but only a fraction has been used because it wasn't used wisely. Or the potential wasn't realized. I don't know.
