Melina Kanakaredes Leaves CSI: NY

The idea about the New Jersey crime lab is great!:guffaw:

That way we could also have an episode in which a case in Jersey leads back to NY so Stella can work again with Mac and the others for one more time.:)
 
It's sad and disappointing to hear MK is leaving the show, but I wish her the best in all future endeavors.

Not sure what happened but seems like whatever contract was offered was not enough incentive for MK to divert signficant time and effort away from her family.

It's odd that they (apparently) couldn't reach common ground on MK appearing in an episode or two to give Stella a nice exit. Seems like both parties would have an interest in seeing that happen, but since apparently it won't, makes me wonder whether there were hard feelings on one or both sides.

As to how they write Stella out, I'd hope they've learned enough from other situations to NOT kill off a character they might want to use again (even sparingly) at some future point, but who knows? I guess it depends in part on how they see NY right now and how much longer they expect it to go on.

If they choose to keep Stella alive, I think they have a few different avenues, which would give them future flexibility. It did seem they were emphasizing Stella's leadership/supervisory role more last season, so they could have her leave to head up another lab, or as someone else mentioned, she could go into teaching. I guess she also could decide to take a sabbatical and go to Greece to explore more of her roots. Regardless, it seems like there will have to be some sort of time jump to explain all the changes occurring in the premiere.

Re: Sela Ward, I liked some of her previous work but haven't really seen her in much recently so don't have a good idea of how she will fit with the cast and team. In any case, they''ll have to figure out how her presence impacts the nature and tone of the intra-team dynamics and as usual, the audience will decide whether they like it or not.

On the one hand, it seems NY will have a daunting task ahead of it with two major changes (timeslot and cast) at a time when the ratings seem to be in decline. They may get a nice premiere audience due to curiosity about the changes, but whether they can hold onto it is a big question mark (as we saw last season). On the other hand, perhaps the expectations for Friday night ratings aren't as high, so they may be able to hang on longer even if the baseline ratings are much lower. Time will tell....

Unfortunately, my interest already was declining towards the end of last season, and the news of MK's departure does not help. I'll check in on the spoilers and reviews from time to time to see how the show is faring but probably won't be watching regularly unless something major occurs like GS/Mac's last episode or the series finale.

Best wishes to Melina Kanakaredes and good luck to NY.
 
Since this is pretty big news, I figured it warrants its own thread. According to Ausiello, Melina opted not to renew her contract (sounds like she was asked to take a pay cut) and will not be back for season seven. It's possible she might not even be back to give Stella an exit, though let's hope that's not the case.

How do you feel about this? Will you still be watching? And who do you think could be brought in to replace Stella?

Stella can always return as long as they're not going to kill her off! Instead of casting new investigators, have you actually considered the possibility to see another actress playing the role of Stella?
 
Melina has always said they have gone out of the way to make her girls "at home" on the set. I am quite suspicious of the timing and her finality in her exit. It is two weeks out to filming season seven and all of a sudden this? I think money may have something to do with it but I think the way they have been writing her character this last season maybe even more. . You can tell how much she loves playing Stella doing her own stunts when she can.

No I think they not only had monetary issues but more likely writing problems which have been quite evident this last season. Since they have been shoving Danny and Lindsey down our throats the past two seasons someone must think we all just love them since they devoted the finale to them. They better wake up because they just lost a whole fan base and the "Messers" just dont cut it. That and all the Blitz and Bling guest stars they paraded out.The only thing that could save this series is Melina takes a leave and this gets resolved. I may be in denial but the love she has for her character and her coworkers is evident. And I cant believe something could not be worked out. It looks like the line had been drawen in the sand.

You said it all perfectly! As you, I feel it was a monetary issue which coincided with the baggage they kept reaming on Stella's storyline setting up for her exit.
This overall falls into the hands of CBS, as we evidently have seen, and making way to make up for its budget to keep a so called actor with his slew of misdemeanors on its network. Time will tell to see can this impact hit CBS with its foolhardy decisions.
 
Geeno--> your siggy

Balletmaus--> your avvie

ARE AWESOME! :D

Thank you! :D When is Stella not awesome? :D Got it from Grounds for Deception - the best Mac/Stella episode! :thumbsup: I really like it. I will miss the chemistry between them.
 
^ Unless Stella dies or moves far away, I don't see why Mac wouldn't continue to behave normally, for the most part anyway. Not working with your best friend anymore might suck, but it's hardly the end of the world -- especially if she's his best friend, it stands to reason they'd remain close because they'd hang out after work and stuff (although we might not get to see that, unless Melina makes guest appearances, because usually the shows focus on what happens on the job. Hopefully.).

If they have Stella making a career change -- maybe deciding to lecture at one of the NY universities, real or fictional, like she did in "Prey"; or moving to work at the New Jersey Crime Lab or something -- that would be a non-tragic way of writing her out that leaves room for a return, and that wouldn't require Mac to lose the progress he's made in the last six years.

I agree. I guess, if Stella stayed in NY Mac would adjust rather quickly. I guess he would miss her, depending on how much time has elapsed between her departure and the next episode, he could already be used to not having her around anymore.
I'd love if Stella stayed present by suggesting that he talked to her on the phone, had lunch with her etc.

But what would be Stella's motive to suddenly teach at the university? There was no hint that she was fed up with her job as a CSI and she was simply a guest speaker before.

I really like it. I will miss the chemistry between them.

You won't be the only one. I loved it; the dynamics between the two. They were great together.
 
Since I pretty much missed the last season, because Direct TV sucks major butt. With the depature of Stella I am going to pretend the reason she is leaving is because she is taking time off to have Flack's baby. Yes, I'm in denial. I'm allowed to be. Omg (runs away sobbing)
 
But what would be Stella's motive to suddenly teach at the university? There was no hint that she was fed up with her job as a CSI and she was simply a guest speaker before.

If Stella receives a really good offer for a teaching position or top job at another lab, she could think it is too good an opportunity to pass up and time for her to "spread her wings" -- especially if she feels that Mac has finally come out of his shell and is getting back to his old self. Whatever they end up doing though, it will probably seem a bit abrupt and contrived to many who have watched most of the six seasons.
 
As to how they write Stella out, I'd hope they've learned enough from other situations to NOT kill off a character they might want to use again (even sparingly) at some future point, but who knows?
I have no idea how the writers will accomodate the transition. But I agree and hope they don't resort to killing the character off. I also think it would be a great ace up a sleeve to keep open a possible guest appearance in future, if MK and the show are both ammenable to such a thing.

Stella can always return as long as they're not going to kill her off! Instead of casting new investigators, have you actually considered the possibility to see another actress playing the role of Stella?
To reply or not, I'll answer teh question :p. Considered it? Erm. Honestly? No, it hadn't atall occured to me, ya got me there :lol:. For a few reasons.

The most relevant for the question is that the show has already given a mini press-snippet about Ward joining the show, with an albeit undetailed and wide open description of her character. From Washington, an investigator, an empathetic character. Seems like MK is the only Stella there is :).

(I'm happy enough for that. I don't think it would work any other way, frankly :p, and it would have been extremely unsusual had they tried. Though it could have been interesting to have a Stella/doppleganger episode if MK had made a guest appearance in that context :p).

Beyond that, nuthin really need be said. Besides. It makes this post shorter if I don't ;)

Maybe you can be a member of the wedding party down at city hall!!! :lol:
...Just don't expect me to forever hold my peace :p

Its a shame that she is not getting a proper exit story, its a bit of a sad end to such a popular character. I wonder how they will put it in. No doubt the premiere will be set a few months after the Shane Casey stuff, and they will mention something in retrospect. Very sad.
Regardless, it seems like there will have to be some sort of time jump to explain all the changes occurring in the premiere.
The cliff-hanger is rather the interesting grit in the wheel for timing, innit. It would be odd if the show jumped ahead far enough to have resolved their revisted-uber-villain without the second half of the cliffhanger addressing it directly. But how do they address Stella's absence in S7 if they go ahead continuing the timeline directly from the S6 finale. Dunno.

For me the finale was bland enough; jumping ahead in time would be even more anti-climactic. Could be they'd do a narrative format, as they did with The Box, to address more than one set of goings on, with one voice to anchor them. Do not know.

I also thought I'd read that Ward will appear in the premier. In what capacity, who knows. (Unless of course Casey escapes again and heads to DC... :shifty: :p). Perhaps there's a whole new case to attend to that will explain Stella's absence and Ward's character's involvement, while the Casey angle plays out. A multi-case ep to start the season. Would be a welcome change.

I do wonder if they'll try to address the cliffhanger, Stella's departure, and the new character's arrival all in the premier, or if they will find a way to delay directly addressing one while still introducing the other.

^ Unless Stella dies or moves far away, I don't see why Mac wouldn't continue to behave normally, for the most part anyway. Not working with your best friend anymore might suck, but it's hardly the end of the world -- especially if she's his best friend, it stands to reason they'd remain close because they'd hang out after work and stuff (although we might not get to see that, unless Melina makes guest appearances, because usually the shows focus on what happens on the job. Hopefully.).

If they have Stella making a career change -- maybe deciding to lecture at one of the NY universities, real or fictional, like she did in "Prey"; or moving to work at the New Jersey Crime Lab or something -- that would be a non-tragic way of writing her out that leaves room for a return, and that wouldn't require Mac to lose the progress he's made in the last six years.
Agree wif alla dis. Again. No notion as to how they'd write it up in a way that would Make Sense.

I think to kill off Stella would be a HUGE mistake. Aiden's departure was proved to be one and the same i can say if they get rid of Stella, SPECIALLY if they get rid of Stella.
Aiden's departure was not something I would look at as a mistake. I don't even necessarily think killing the character off for an event storyline was a mistake.

As hard as it is to say, if I'm being honest and non-flippant, I can't say that I think the character of Lindsay Monroe as the new S2 team member was a mistake. There was potential for the character. Now, the casting of it? Well, that's proven over time not to be my favorite thing in the world. The (so-called) progression of the character over the past few seasons? I'd call that a disappointment. How the two have combined? ...a source of chronic exasperation, something I find consistently detracts from my personal enjoyment of the show, and something that I feel has in a sense confined it and tied certain options in knots.

If I'm being precise, decisions within storylines in that path are what, if anything, I might call mistakes. The decision to integrate a RL pregnancy into that of the character. The incredibly conventional handling of it as they did so. The marriage of Danny and Lindsay. Those are also examples where I think so much more could have been done having made those decisions, even if I think they shouldn't have been done at all.

It might have been nice to have available the option to invite Vanessa Ferlito back to reprise her character beyond the DJ Pratt storyline, but I think it was still a good plot, and was done in a way that ensured it had a profound effect on all the characters, even and including the new addition from Montana, and it certainly impacted the viewers.

That does not mean I think the show should kill off Stella's character. I just think that whatever they do in terms of the transition, I hope it's done very, very well, and doesn't come across as a way out, even though most viewers familiar with the show at all would view it that way in light of MK's departure.

Aiden's departure was different though. She did a couple episodes at the beginning of Season 2, and Mac fired her. She didn't drop off the map after Season 1 aired, she was properly written out of the show. Her murder later on made sense, to me. Vanessa probably wasn't going to return to the show, and Aiden was obviously obsessed with catching DJ Pratt.
I agree with this too. The transition was stepped in S2, and S7 won't have the luxury of MK's direct participation. In retrospect especially, Aiden's exit seemed very well drawn and realized. I think it could have been left at the second ep, and that Heroes wasn't wholly necessary, but can't deny Heroes had impact as an ep either. And it did still"make sense," as you put it. It also had Ferlito back to film the flashback bits, while the team and the plot moved forward in the present tense. It's been awhile since I saw the ep, but from what I can recall of it, it was well crafted.

Do I think the show could further improve upon the sharpness and balance of personal material, of all kinds (family, injury, loss, romance, etc), to case material on a general show level? Absolutely. Do I think it should be excluded altogether? No, not at all.
Oh, I didn't mean that there was too much romance, just that many people felt the love triangle didn't belong in CSI NY.
You could count me among those people :lol: but there was far more hype about a triangle than there was one of the sort that was teased at. One of PV's replies still stands true, that they've set up circumstances where Mac could be in a great place to have a relationship, if the show chooses to go there. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

I was still pleasantly surprised by how Aubrey was introduced and included in a few eps, I was pleasantly surprised how Peyton's return was handled. I was relieved that there was no real triangle, given I was dreading the potential of far worse.

I doubt as much of the fall out and discussion would be had, not when the Twilight comment was made, nor now in light of MK's departure, were a ship not involved, especially one centred around leading characters, one of whom is now making an undetermined exit.

They had said more about it than they in the end made of, however, other than bringing Mac closure with Peyton, there was no reason for her and neither was there need for Aubrey as in being crucial to any episode at all.

I liked the more personal aspect the show took, how the characters had deeper relationships and personalities than the other CSI shows.
Here's where it's interesting now.

...There was no reason to include personal material, and its not crucial, but folk like how the characters have deeper relationships and personalities...?

What's crucial to an ep? Cases, context, and characters. Interesting cases, contexts, and characters.

It wasn't crucial that a material witness be Sam Flack in particular, but it was a well devised inclusion of a personal nugget for Flack; why was there need for Peyton in S3., or for Quinn and Mac have a past, for Adam and Kendall to have their Must Fight Crime moment, that Claire Conrad had a son she gave up for adoption who years later went looking for his birth mother and found her widowed husband instead, for Danny and Rikki to get together in grief, why bring Pino back, have Flack and Angell get together, victimize Louie, do an ep about a childhood friend from the Orphanage for Stella, give her a psycho boyfriend, or a fireman date, what's crucial about a Dark Sekrit for Lindsay, or an old friend of Sheldon's returning and subsequently being responsible for beating him up, why toss Mac off a ledge and have Peyton drop in for a conference, why have a cop and an ER doc interrupted in their pizza one-upmanship to kickstart a case. Why not.

It gives the characters and cast more to do. Keeps them from being bored silly by spouting multi-syllabic science technobabble alone. Hopefully engages viewers more by involving more of the characters' lives. Alludes to different types of pressures and experiences that may color their perspective and potential interaction with whatever they encounter. ...increases the personal aspect the show takes, gives the characters deeper relationships and personalities...

I think the issue is how those characters are integrated. How concisely, how sharply, how well balanced. Integrated: into episodic circumstances (Sam was a material witness, Aubrey brought evidence and insight enabling an investigation to be opened and warrants obtained, Quinn was also reviewing the labs, etc); environmental context (Peyton was an ME, Kendall was a lab tech, Angell a precinct cop); or more deeply related plot-lines (Reed was kidnapped by the cabbie killer, for example, and has been well woven into several plots and not just Mac's life, Reuben's death was investigated as a case, and was not just fodder for personal material for Danny, ditto Rikki and the gun, which characters like Flack and Lindsay also had to deal with, Pino was a friend and colleague turned perp, who's fall stunned everybody).

Some were key in stories, some were peripheral. But it was all stuff that added to the show and in some instances created very memorable moments.

Back to the Triangle wot wasn't, as per your point. Aubrey was, of course, integrated juuuuust enough into Mac's life to make the jousting with Peyton in POV fun and interesting. Both instances created some fun moments that I think contributed to the show. If that's the triangle, I can live with that.

Basically. I don't feel that Aubrey or Peyton or Reed or Sam or Rikki or Quinn or the like detracted from the episodes they were in. (Conversely, for me, Lindsay, who's a team member, does, So go figure :lol:. We're right back to To Each Their Own :p).

-

What keeps coming up is: People saying they want the cases to be the forefront. I agree. People saying the characters are a large part of what drew them to this particular show. I agree. I keep saying I'd love a a sharpness and a balance between the two. What I keep coming back to, is that the cases have never been NY's most consistent or strongest point. I want them both to improve, not half the equation jettisoned for the other to be a center stage mediocrity.

Cases, especially those stemming from the uniqueness of the city, should be the main focus of the show. Having relatable characters in the midst of it is crucial. Removing all personal character related material from the show would render it anonymous and rather sterile. People wouldn't give a damn about the show or the characters if they went that route. They certainly wouldn't be upset about one leaving.

Originally Posted By Ballemaus:
I really like it. I will miss the chemistry between them.
You won't be the only one. I loved it; the dynamics between the two. They were great together.
This I agree with too.
 
The cliff-hanger is rather the interesting grit in the wheel for timing, innit. It would be odd if the show jumped ahead far enough to have resolved their revisted-uber-villain without the second half of the cliffhanger addressing it directly. But how do they address Stella's absence in S7 if they go ahead continuing the timeline directly from the S6 finale. Dunno.

I'm intrigued by it as well. They made such a huge effort, well of sorts, to bring Shane Casey back, added that episode and got a popular villain back on the show... just to have their plans spoiled by contract negotiations, so it seemed. Sort of ironic, isn't it?
And a pity as well because I don't think they planned for jumping ahead. I hope they didn't, I think that cliffhanger deserves a proper resolution.

I do wonder if they'll try to address the cliffhanger, Stella's departure, and the new character's arrival all in the premier, or if they will find a way to delay directly addressing one while still introducing the other.

That is a lot to cramp into a 45 minute episode... I have a strong feeling that the outcome won't be satisfactory :p

Aiden's departure was not something I would look at as a mistake. I don't even necessarily think killing the character off for an event storyline was a mistake.

I agree. While it was a cruel way for her to go, I liked how she helped bringing Pratt to justice. How they made her a tragic hero.

As hard as it is to say, if I'm being honest and non-flippant, I can't say that I think the character of Lindsay Monroe as the new S2 team member was a mistake. There was potential for the character. Now, the casting of it? Well, that's proven over time not to be my favorite thing in the world. The (so-called) progression of the character over the past few seasons? I'd call that a disappointment. How the two have combined? ...a source of chronic exasperation, something I find consistently detracts from my personal enjoyment of the show, and something that I feel has in a sense confined it and tied certain options in knots.

Though that lack of progression isn't AB's fault any more than it's MK's fault that Stella sort of stagnated during the past season.
Lindsay started out as interesting but then she disappeared, I guess, with her first pregnancy. Well, AB's first pregnancy not Lindsay's first :p Because they had set up great things for her and then AB was pushed into the background. And was forgotten so that she could even not appear in all episodes.

If I'm being precise, decisions within storylines in that path are what, if anything, I might call mistakes. The decision to integrate a RL pregnancy into that of the character. The incredibly conventional handling of it as they did so. The marriage of Danny and Lindsay. Those are also examples where I think so much more could have been done having made those decisions, even if I think they shouldn't have been done at all.

Agreed. Or shouldn't have been done at all.


You could count me among those people :lol: but there was far more hype about a triangle than there was one of the sort that was teased at. One of PV's replies still stands true, that they've set up circumstances where Mac could be in a great place to have a relationship, if the show chooses to go there. I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

If he has to have a relationship, I don't mind either. I could live with Peyton because it didn't overshadow anything of the show.
But no matter if it were Peyton, Aubrey or Stella, I wouldn't want any more of it. A mentioning here, a mentioning there, so we know he's still with someone if he's got to be with someone (other than Stella) but I wouldn't want anything more than that because if I would, I would be watching a show about Mac and his love life. Yet I've been watching CSI... thought I was watching it anyway ;)

I doubt as much of the fall out and discussion would be had, not when the Twilight comment was made, nor now in light of MK's departure, were a ship not involved, especially one centred around leading characters, one of whom is now making an undetermined exit.

I agree. Were it Adam/AJ Buckely or Sheldon/Harper who were to drop out things would be a lot quieter. But then they're also a lot "quieter" characters.

It wasn't crucial that a material witness be Sam Flack in particular, but it was a well devised inclusion of a personal nugget for Flack; why was there need for Peyton in S3., or for Quinn and Mac have a past, for Adam and Kendall to have their Must Fight Crime moment, that Claire Conrad had a son she gave up for adoption who years later went looking for his birth mother and found her widowed husband instead, for Danny and Rikki to get together in grief, why bring Pino back, have Flack and Angell get together, victimize Louie, do an ep about a childhood friend from the Orphanage for Stella, give her a psycho boyfriend, or a fireman date, what's crucial about a Dark Sekrit for Lindsay, or an old friend of Sheldon's returning and subsequently being responsible for beating him up, why toss Mac off a ledge and have Peyton drop in for a conference, why have a cop and an ER doc interrupted in their pizza one-upmanship to kickstart a case. Why not.

To be honest, I didn't think any of those characters curcial. Some I wish would have been made more out of. Sam Flack for example, she could have been great when Flack struggled with Angell's loss, Reed was fine to me because it connected to Mac's late wife.
Kendall I would have liked to see more off, she could have been an interesting counterpart to Adam.
All of those characters had potential or have it and I wish they would have used it. Sure, a show has to deal with uncertainty, however, authors are paid a huge amount of money so they can do it and not bring in characters they're not using again after one or two times while the episode could have done without said character.
It's all about how you connect the character to the existing characters and use the potential.
The problem I'm having is that so many episodes could have been done without the characters they introduced and connected to a main character but then were never used again. Reed is an exception. But personally I don't think the episode with Kendall couldn't have been done without connecting her to Adam in the way they had. Or Samantha Flack, they didn't need to make her Flack's sister. Don't remember why they did that anyway. Ella McBride - why bring her in for the third time?
Quinn - why the personal connection to Mac? Though that was probably one that could be shrugged off and be put to Mac's history, like Reed. And Reed's at least recurring, though I've been joking he was brought originally into the show for the sole purpose of showing that Mac's closer to Stella than to Peyton

Aubrey; would have loved if there was more to her. We've all seen the photo of Claire, so I would love if Mac had sort of seen Claire in Aubrey but would have realized Aubrey wasn't Claire and would have kept things on a friendly basis with her. Then Aubrey would serve the purpose of doing something for Mac's storyline.
It's all about how you connect things. How you tie the characters in and make them crucial because you can do it; you can give them a purpose and if there isn't you just leave out the personal connection to a character. (and this so has nothing to do with MK leaving :p)

...increases the personal aspect the show takes, gives the characters deeper relationships and personalities...

But only if it's handled well and connected to that. Which hasn't happened a lot.

Back to the Triangle wot wasn't, as per your point. Aubrey was, of course, integrated juuuuust enough into Mac's life to make the jousting with Peyton in POV fun and interesting. Both instances created some fun moments that I think contributed to the show. If that's the triangle, I can live with that.

If that was all, I can live with it as well... Or maybe not because it also happened at the expense of Stella. Episodes 22 and 21 could both have been written only very slightly differently and could have been written without either Aubrey and Peyton. Mac could have been with Sheldon at the beginning of episode 21 and at the end it could have been Stella - and normally it would have been Stella, had there not been the love triangle.
Peyton wouldn't have needed to be in the guys apartment at all, it could have been a friend of whoever from the team. There was no need for Peyton Without saying they're connected, just figuratively speaking, they got their love triangle but MK is leaving...

Basically. I don't feel that Aubrey or Peyton or Reed or Sam or Rikki or Quinn or the like detracted from the episodes they were in.

It wasn't what I was meaning either. But if I could do the episode without the character then to me that character isn't needed.
And it's not really spoken from an entertainment point of view but more from a writing point of view.

But as you said, it's a matter of taste.

If Stella receives a really good offer for a teaching position or top job at another lab, she could think it is too good an opportunity to pass up and time for her to "spread her wings" -- especially if she feels that Mac has finally come out of his shell and is getting back to his old self. Whatever they end up doing though, it will probably seem a bit abrupt and contrived to many who have watched most of the six seasons.

I'm still not convinced she has those wings. She didn't seem to be the person who didn't want to be a police officer with all her heart and stayed just because of Mac.
 
Last edited:
Elwood21 said:
...There was no reason to include personal material, and its not crucial, but folk like how the characters have deeper relationships and personalities...?

What's crucial to an ep? Cases, context, and characters. Interesting cases, contexts, and characters.

It wasn't crucial that a material witness be Sam Flack in particular, but it was a well devised inclusion of a personal nugget for Flack; why was there need for Peyton in S3., or for Quinn and Mac have a past, for Adam and Kendall to have their Must Fight Crime moment, that Claire Conrad had a son she gave up for adoption who years later went looking for his birth mother and found her widowed husband instead, for Danny and Rikki to get together in grief, why bring Pino back, have Flack and Angell get together, victimize Louie, do an ep about a childhood friend from the Orphanage for Stella, give her a psycho boyfriend, or a fireman date, what's crucial about a Dark Sekrit for Lindsay, or an old friend of Sheldon's returning and subsequently being responsible for beating him up, why toss Mac off a ledge and have Peyton drop in for a conference, why have a cop and an ER doc interrupted in their pizza one-upmanship to kickstart a case. Why not.

It gives the characters and cast more to do. Keeps them from being bored silly by spouting multi-syllabic science technobabble alone. Hopefully engages viewers more by involving more of the characters' lives. Alludes to different types of pressures and experiences that may color their perspective and potential interaction with whatever they encounter. ...increases the personal aspect the show takes, gives the characters deeper relationships and personalities...

I think the issue is how those characters are integrated. How concisely, how sharply, how well balanced. Integrated: into episodic circumstances (Sam was a material witness, Aubrey brought evidence and insight enabling an investigation to be opened and warrants obtained, Quinn was also reviewing the labs, etc); environmental context (Peyton was an ME, Kendall was a lab tech, Angell a precinct cop); or more deeply related plot-lines (Reed was kidnapped by the cabbie killer, for example, and has been well woven into several plots and not just Mac's life, Reuben's death was investigated as a case, and was not just fodder for personal material for Danny, ditto Rikki and the gun, which characters like Flack and Lindsay also had to deal with, Pino was a friend and colleague turned perp, who's fall stunned everybody).

Some were key in stories, some were peripheral. But it was all stuff that added to the show and in some instances created very memorable moments.

See, this is where it's tricky for me. I agree that of all the CSIs, the one most likely to delve into personal material for its characters is NY, and I love that about it. I also love the main characters a lot, and that's why it's my favourite. But I don't think NY has the most developed character-personalities, or even deeper relationships (I actually think that distinction goes to CSI Original, but that's way OT); and the fact that the show delves into personal material more than the others do, doesn't have much -- if any -- effect on that.

CSI as a franchise is about crime-solving and scientific technobabble (although that part is far more fun when they integrate it as a conversation between the characters, rather than as mini-monologues), the ups and downs of all that; that`s the main crux, that`s what the actors sign up for and what the writers are largely meant to write for. Imo -- going from what drew me to the original CSI almost ten years ago -- how the characters deal day-to-day with that line of work, and how they connect with each other on that level and the bonds that arise from that, are way more important than how they connect on a more personal level. Especially being a procedural show, it's the characters' everyday hook that counts more than what's going on in their personal lives or what storylines they might have.

[For example, I love Mac and Stella and Danny and Flack's friendship-outside-of-work moments a lot. But I'd take the earlier-season Sara/Catherine frenemies-that-trust-each-other-workwise relationship from CSI over both any day.]

That doesn't mean I don't like or even prefer the personal glimpses into their lives, so in that sense I definitely agree that while they don't have to add them, it's a nice treat when they do.

However, I've always wondered why, despite being the one most likely to go personal, NY is often seen as the most "impersonal" of the CSIs, even by people who watch all three fairly regularly. With S6, I think the problem became a little clearer for me -- the trap NY may have fallen into is that if people don't care enough about the characters themselves to feel they can relate to them, they're not going to give a crap about what's going on in their personal lives. With the general CSI format, the way to make people care may be by highlighting what they're like on the job, and with the characters on the job rather than off it. Doing otherwise just seems out of place.

So in that sense, I agree with Ballettmaus; not that Aubrey wasn't enjoyable, nor was her relationship with Mac (and this goes for anyone on the team -- DL-personal moments, Hawkes and his future girlfriend, even things like Flack and Sam to be honest). Most of those are enjoyable and brilliant on different levels, and can be a fun treat; but only in the sense that they perform their function, an extension of a character I actually want to see more of. When they do otherwise, that, imo, is when they start detracting from episodes. They`re supposed to be the icing, not the whole cake. They're not what I tune in to see and imo, I shouldn't be left feeling like those moments were the highlight of the episode. Which I often was in S6.

So I definitely agree that relatable characters, and certainly cases are the main focus.

One of the more frustrating things about S6 - and even slightly earlier seasons, like S5 and even S4 a little -- was how, while the writers brought their A-game to some of the personal storylines, they kind of left the actual solving of the cases (and how the team went about doing that) to feel very...routine, like the characters were just going through the motions. There were all these interchangeable lines and interactions that could have belonged to or happened between any character; and few if any character-specific lines and interactions.

Which tended to come back and bite them by hindering the personal storylines, too. CSI, and even S1/S2/S3 of NY, never used to be about just standing around spouting technobabble.
 
Last edited:
[For example, I love Mac and Stella and Danny and Flack's friendship-outside-of-work moments a lot. But I'd take the earlier-season Sara/Catherine frenemies-that-trust-each-other-workwise relationship from CSI over both any day.]
For me, Mac and Stella is the most develop pairing in all CSI franchise. They might not be married or have a baby but their relationship together is wonderful. I believe they already passed all tests a friendship could go through still they are (were) together. This is why I'm so disappointed with MK leaving. I love Stella but I love Mac/Stella's friendship too.
 
I'd choose Sara and Catherine's relationship because to me that's an actual development -- you can chart their relationship from beginning to now and see where things changed, and how they started to trust each other: first on the job because they had to, then off of it (a little), even though they clash on many subjects. But Sara and Catherine is just one example, there's also Warrick and Nick, and Greg and Grissom and so on...I don't think any of the other CSI shows have demonstrated anything close to the sort of deep relationships built from necessary, on-the-job trust that the original CSI does. That`s JMO, though. It may also be because as the first, CSI had longer to work on showing those connections and how they formed, whereas with the other two, TPTB may have taken it for granted after a couple of years that the audience would assume those connections were already there. For NY, I think they used to work hard on building those initial connections in the first few seasons, but I've noticed that none of the three really work on that anymore. Which kind of sucks.

I will agree that Mac and Stella have the most developed friendship on CSI:NY. Purely in a friendship-way, because I think you can see the little changes in it where they start trust each other even more, and where they don't so much; and you can kind of assume that friendship first began over a necessary on-the-job trust. So yeah, I'll miss that when Stella leaves. Especially since it's always kind of bugged me that Mac/Stella essentially started in the middle (they were already pretty close when the show started in S1), and we don't get much indication of what they were like when they started off.
 
I'm intrigued by it as well. They made such a huge effort, well of sorts, to bring Shane Casey back, added that episode and got a popular villain back on the show... just to have their plans spoiled by contract negotiations, so it seemed. Sort of ironic, isn't it?
And a pity as well because I don't think they planned for jumping ahead. I hope they didn't, I think that cliffhanger deserves a proper resolution.
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.

That is a lot to cramp into a 45 minute episode... I have a strong feeling that the outcome won't be satisfactory :p
: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.

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'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.

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.

Though that lack of progression isn't AB's fault any more than it's MK's fault that Stella sort of stagnated during the past season.
I didna say at all it was. I don't blame the actors for what's written for the characters nor how its written. There are things each have been asked to play that have been frustrating or unengaging.

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.

If he has to have a relationship, I don't mind either. I could live with Peyton because it didn't overshadow anything of the show.
But no matter if it were Peyton, Aubrey or Stella, I wouldn't want any more of it. A mentioning here, a mentioning there, so we know he's still with someone if he's got to be with someone (other than Stella) but I wouldn't want anything more than that because if I would, I would be watching a show about Mac and his love life. Yet I've been watching CSI... thought I was watching it anyway ;)
I can't look at Mac's relationship possibilities separate from any other character's material. I agree in that relationships and personal material should remain secondary, and be concisely well integrated when it is addressed. But I also think that if it's going to be included, it should be considered worthy enough to devote airtime to. I think it's better to have a select few well-crafted moments on-screen and not solely rely on conversational allusions.

That's why, while we only knew of Claire thru Mac's words about her (Blink is an ep I'll never forget for his monologue about the beach ball), it was great to have Reed to give Mac another way of dealing with the material, for example. Similarly, moments of interaction among the team were good too. Mrs. Azrael was another great ep, and had a poignant but short scene with Sheldon and Mac about his father. S3 was a good one on several levels in challenging Mac. Reed, Peyton, Gerrard, Sinclair, were all a part of that. I don't feel cases suffered for it, that I recall anyways, been awhile :lol:. I think those recurring characters were integrated well when they were included.

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.

It wouldn't have been nearly as moving to hear "hey, didja hear about Pino, jeez man, wtf..." than it was to have an ep about him. It's great to hear Flack talk about Sam, Adam about his father, Sheldon about his uncle, Sid about his wife and daughter, but who wouldn't like to have Sam back for an appearance or some set of relevant circumstances to meet the others.

Cliff Angell was another well used character. I also liked Terence making another appearance. I like that characters can help maintain the show's realm. Aubrey could possibly be used in that fashion as an ER doc, as well as being a potential LI.

I wouldn't mind for Sheldon to meet someone. So long as it's concise and precise and well integrated. Don't want the show to be about his love life :lol:. Wasn't keen on Danny & Lindsay. Mostly because I came to feel oversaturated by DL. Not organic, shall we say :lol:, and not concise. Don't want the show to be about their love life. S5 felt bent around it. S6 was definitely better in that regard. I still have a few residual twitches.

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 :p. I think both avenues were tied into cases reasonably well.

How strong the cases themselves were, and how material may be divvied among the group, are other issues.

To be honest, I didn't think any of those characters curcial. Some I wish would have been made more out of.
I agree, and that is part of my point.

Crux is context, screen time, and integration. Whether they're crucial to a plot or not, I still think having those kinds of characters from time to time helps.

Related. If everyone the team encounters is anonymous all the time, it can feel much more reliant on formula, and rather impersonal. But. If done well, being completely on the outside and peeling back the layers can be fun. The flip side is, if the team encounter people they just happen to know too often, it crosses bounds of credulity (and golly, I'd hate for NY to do that :p). But. Why not have them know a few. Why not supplement purely incidental ways the characters are affected by their work to have a bit of both.

Aubrey; would have loved if there was more to her. We've all seen the photo of Claire, so I would love if Mac had sort of seen Claire in Aubrey but would have realized Aubrey wasn't Claire and would have kept things on a friendly basis with her. Then Aubrey would serve the purpose of doing something for Mac's storyline.
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.

b) I think the show went that route with Peyton in S3 with the name slip-up and showing his struggling to decide to open up more or not. Mac opted for opening up, btw, not retreating to a friendly basis. That also served the purpose of his personal arc.

If that was all, I can live with it as well... Or maybe not because it also happened at the expense of Stella.
Not catching the correlation here. I don't think Mac's relationships with Aubrey or Peyton have much to do with Stella.

Episodes 22 and 21 could both have been written only very slightly differently and could have been written without either Aubrey and Peyton. Mac could have been with Sheldon at the beginning of episode 21 and at the end it could have been Stella - and normally it would have been Stella, had there not been the love triangle.
Ah. Catching on to what you're saying. Coffee. Ya know. :p.

Depends in part on whether one begrudges giving characters opportunities to play using more than team interaction alone. I personally didn't mind something a bit different. I have appreciated the show pushing and trying different story formats, eg. in a few eps. I also didn't think other characters really suffered for it. Just my take.

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?

Why have Flack with a girlfriend who's place was robbed by an uber thief? Why not. Could have been anyone's apartment. Was fun to have that connection. Why have Flack and Danny at a basketball game where someone drops dead? No need for them to be there to establish the case. But it was fun. Why not have Mac and Aubrey's pizza competition interrupted. Stella and Mac still had chinese food for breakfast. Why bother with that? Not necessary. But fun.

Who's to say it would default have been Stella to end an ep like .21? Flack was the key there. Mac and Aubrey were a cyclical fade to black, bookends to start and end the ep. They served a function in structure as well as playing concisely written fun interpersonal interaction. Nothing illogical, melodramatic, or soapish so far as I read it.

Hell. Mebbe Stella had plans of her own. Mebbe she and Sheldon were bowling :p. But it's not like Stella gets dibs on Mac, or has somehow been neglected. It was Flack's ep above all. Everyone else was in a sense playing to that.

The focus was quite appropriately on Stella in Marina Garito, for example, and Aubrey didn't take from that at all. And of course, in that ep, some people felt Stella's depiction was over the top. So go figure. Can't please everyone alla da time.

Peyton wouldn't have needed to be in the guys apartment at all, it could have been a friend of whoever from the team. There was no need for Peyton Without saying they're connected, just figuratively speaking, they got their love triangle but MK is leaving...

I gotta add this in, here:
It's all about how you connect things. How you tie the characters in and make them crucial because you can do it; you can give them a purpose and if there isn't you just leave out the personal connection to a character.
Peyton's past with Mac made it a fun tie in and enabled added layers in playing the plot that using a team member would not. It enabled more than teh Usual. It was integrated well.

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. She was taking a stance contrary to Mac's Point Of View at every step of the way. That in itself was a different dynamic that we have seen far more rarely. (And no, that's not Stella's purview alone). Add into that a personal history, and it charges the situation a bit more.

Peyton's return wasn't gratuitously done. A case was at the forefront, it did bring back a formerly recurring character, and it did address past material as well.

Orignally Posted By Maya316
CSI as a franchise is about crime-solving and scientific technobabble.... Imo -- going from what drew me to the original CSI almost ten years ago -- how the characters deal day-to-day with that line of work, and how they connect with each other on that level and the bonds that arise from that, are way more important than how they connect on a more personal level. Especially being a procedural show, it's the characters' everyday hook that counts more than what's going on in their personal lives or what storylines they might have.
I agree a helluva lot with a lotta this. So much of what I said in my Dear Writers from a ways back still stands. One of the reasons it was fun to see NY from its inception was to learn the characters through how they did their job, and how that affected them. How they managed within that depended not just on their own character but their interaction with those they work with. That interaction really became a sort of signature for NY in addition to the city and the tone. The personal revelations that we got along the way were gravy.

But. As a series goes along, people get to know the rhythms of a formula and format, especially one that is a third spin off within a franchise. It's not unusual or out of place to look to characters a bit more as both subjects and players. So long as the over riding premise of the show remains.

We did get a bit more of seeing how cases were affecting some characters this season. It didn't always feel as cohesive as it has in the past. Characters and context feed off each other. But its been awhile since the puzzles alone have been strong enough to carry NY, if they ever were.

However, I've always wondered why, despite being the one most likely to go personal, NY is often seen as the most "impersonal" of the CSIs, even by people who watch all three fairly regularly.
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.

With S6, I think the problem became a little clearer for me -- the trap NY may have fallen into is that if people don't care enough about the characters themselves to feel they can relate to them, they're not going to give a crap about what's going on in their personal lives. With the general CSI format, the way to make people care may be by highlighting what they're like on the job, and with the characters on the job rather than off it. Doing otherwise just seems out of place.
For me, I think the past few seasons have fallen into a few potholes. I think the cases and the depiction of how they have been investigated over the past few seasons have but for a few been average to mediocre. I think this makes character related material stand out more, and it's platform mandate less prominent. It does shift the balance in quality if one does not have relative parity with the other. Characters additionally have become associated with certain functions and feel increasingly predictable in how the are used, in the tone with which they speak, and also feel less challenged by their circumstances and investigations. The motions, as you say. That equates with a certain disinterest. In both elements of what supposedly feed the show. I think mallets have been wielded with oblivious disregard. I as a viewer am not as engaged or challenged by what is presented.

I think the cases need to be stronger and more tightly depicted. I think the city as an anchor needs to feel more prominent. I think that appearances by recurring characters can aid with a sense of context as well. I think the main characters are still our way into the realm of the show. I think who they are and what made them that way and how that informs their current demeanor or how that in turn is modified by who and what they encounter is more than fair game.

Solving a weekly puzzle means that the victim isn't focused on as much as perhaps in SVU, for example, the perpetrator isn't focused on as in CM, the system isn't focused on as it was in L&O. It doesn't play to a will they/won't they dynamic between leads as in Castle or Bones. It doesn't look to tweak procedurals on teh nose as the Mentalist. It's not a buddy cop show as NCIS:LA essentially is. It's not a truth or dare show like Lie To Me. It's also not the only CSI show on. So what sets it apart?

What makes it unique, if anything, are the core group of characters and its home city combined with it's franchise hook, that devil is in the details and he's gonna get you in the end. It is a tricky balance.

Most of those are enjoyable and brilliant on different levels, and can be a fun treat; but only in the sense that they perform their function, an extension of a character I actually want to see more of. When they do otherwise, that, imo, is when they start detracting from episodes. They`re supposed to be the icing, not the whole cake. They're not what I tune in to see and imo, I shouldn't be left feeling like those moments were the highlight of the episode. Which I often was in S6.

So I definitely agree that relatable characters, and certainly cases are the main focus.
I agree. When done well, I do enjoy elements that augment a scenario or aspect of a character. Just adds a wee something.

Even on CSI Original Flavor, the characters have had eps about personal issues and events. It's how its integrated, and perhaps how often. I still do think Vegas is the strongest of the three. It is the first one I started watching, but is also one I fell away from, whereas I have stubbornly kept checking in on NY. And I don't know why... :shifty::p. Perhaps it is to see how well my adopted show/experiment does each week :lol:. I think it's more that I want to see what these particular characters will encounter together each week, and what they do about it. Characters, cases, context.

Just to repeat something I said far more concisely elsewhere, in order to curtail rambling further :lol:.

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.

Meh. another long one :lol:. needing coffee and hoping this hasn't suffered unduly for the lack of it. :p
 
Last edited:
Elwood21 said:
We did get a bit more of seeing how cases were effecting some characters this season. It didn't always feel as cohesive as it has in the past. Characters and context feed off each other. But its been awhile since the puzzles alone have been strong enough to carry NY, if they ever were.

Yeah, I agree that with episodes like "The Formula" and "Unusual Suspects" and "RIP Marina Garito" and "Flag on the Play", the characters were more affected by cases than they've been in a while. The problem I had with it is -- and this is going to sound weird, so feel free to point out it doesn't make sense :lol: -- it felt like the cases were leading the characters, rather than the characters leading the cases. I mean, with old episodes like "Hush", "Cool Hunter", "Murder Sings the Blues", etc, it didn't feel like cases had to be tailored for a specific character in order to make a statement about that character. Instead, the characters (often several at once) would bring their own personalities to the case, and make it theirs in that way, corny as it sounds.

And when there were cases tailored for a specific character, they usually came with intriguing twists. Like Flack was wrong about that mentor he trusted, or the vic that so resembled Stella in "Open and Shut" turned out to be a cold-blooded killer, or how it was less about that mermaid in "Stealing Home" being a country girl, and more about how Lindsay couldn't find a motive for why she was killed.

I don't mind the cases being tailored for a specific character, and "Unusual Suspects" and "The Formula" were among S6's better episodes. It's just...well, "Flag on the Play" (much as I loved seeing Sid that much) was an uncomfortable example of how you can tailor a case to fit any character and still have it be interchangeable -- almost any one of the characters could've featured in that episode, and it wouldn't have changed much -- and "Marina G" bugged me for its simplicity at the end. I remember thinking that had it been an episode on LV, Stella would've turned out to be wrong about the vic..but the same kind of thing happened in NY's S3, only she was wrong then.

(However, I cut "RIP MG" slack because it'd be weird to have Stella make the same mistake twice and be wrong the same way, twice.)

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.
I've seen various different statements, "impersonal" just seems to be the most generic synonym :lol: Mostly on sites that are dedicated to one of the other CSIs or all three or none, though. I also think it's way more a case of different tastes and/or a slight expectation for NY to be just like CSI OF or even Miami, which of course, it's not.

Speaking for myself, I love NY for its characters and its dynamics (city-to-character, character-to-character, case-to-character, it has greatness in all three respects), so I wouldn't want it to be a carbon copy. It's just that there are certain played-out aspects of CSI Original that enhance its personal storylines, that it never occurred to me wouldn't be on NY, back when I watched it more casually. So it's been a little surprising to find out they aren't as much, that's all.

I think the cases need to be stronger and more tightly depicted. I think the city as an anchor needs to feel more prominent. I think that appearances by recurring characters can aid with a sense of context as well. I think the main characters are still our way into the realm of the show. I think who they are and what made them that way and how that informs their current demeanor or how that in turn is modified by who and what they encounter is more than fair game.
This, basically.

It's definitely a hard balance to maintain. And while I think LV does it best, and while the only one I watched for the longest time, NY's the first one that invested me enough to join a fandom, go figure :lol: So they do maintain it well, or at least they did. There's just that extra added element with the show that I can't really explain, but in general to me it's more endearing than the other two, and I hope it gets its stride back.

I also agree that who and what made and influence the main guys outside of work, is definitely fair game to be expanded on. I certainly wouldn't say no to it. I even think that some of the more personal storylines from S6 have been among the best ever. Which makes me sad because, imo, the show shot itself in the foot by simultaneously being lax with the handling of the cases; because for me, if I can't see why I like these characters so much when they're on the job (which is where I first got to "know" most of them, after all), it's harder for me to care about what they're doing off of it.

I mean, yeah, as part of a franchise, the core characters are a huge deal because they're one of the main things you can't find on one of the other shows. The other unique thing with CSI:NY, though, is that they're basically grownups who get paid to solve puzzles and play with toys, and they get to do it in one of the most dynamic cities in the world. The first is something that (with the exception of the other CSIs), no other crime show has; the second is something unique to CSI:NY alone, as far as I know. And they used to use that a lot, and it was fun seeing how each of them individually used that. I kind of miss Stella and Hawkes always going "I love this job, it's never boring", etc, because I could see why. They don't much do that anymore, but I can kind of see why that would be, too -- the cases lately would've left me feeling all "o rly?" if someone had come out with a line like that, because a lot of them are not as, well, fun. Imo, even adding recurring characters can't really replace that.

And that's enough meta for me tonight :lol:
 
Back
Top