Now That Petersen, Fox, Dourdan Are Gone

[myfuturecsi]

I also have to disagree and agree with myfuturecsi. If they had started Langston off on a higher postion, then eveyone would be flipping out about the fact that he didn't have the training, and blah blah blah. It doesn't matter if he was a physician. A physician and anyone in the medical field is extremely different than what a CSI is. If they wanted to put him in the same position as Doc, then yes that would make sense, or even as a consultant. But then people would be complaining about that too.

Ratings have been dipping ever since Grey's Anatomy came into the picture. They were the original competition to CSI. And since then, the ratings have never been back up to where they were around Season Five. And like myfuturecsi has said, every show has a cycle that they go through. Even if WP, JF, and GD had stayed, the ratings still would have slipped. Let's face it, a procedural crime drama can only go so long until it gets redundant for some fans. I know people who have stopped watching because the cases are being recycled, with little changes here and there, not because of who has come and gone.

CSI is near the end of it's run, and I say that almost definitively, or at least in my opinion anyways. I honestly would not want to see it last another five season if the quality and integrity of the show will be compromised. That is what CSI is known for; it's quality. So I'd rather it end next season in it's somewhat prime, then continue going on, regardless of who's still on board

.

Oh I agree, the show is reaching the end of its run, but I guess I'm hoping before it happens we get some flushing out of Nick and the other characters including the lab rats. They've all been in the background for so long and deserve some of the limelight.

But I too hope it ends on a high rather than fizzing out.

 

[gilsgal]

I am another person who is finding it hard to get back into CSI since Billy left. I used to wait with anticipation for Thursday to arrive and taped every show.I don't do that now. I'm trying to give LF a chance. I like and respect him as an actor and I realise that there are going to be growing pains as the show shifts it's focus from Grissom to Langston.

I don't mind that Langston is coming in as a green CSI. That is reality, and I like the opportunities it gives to the other characters to show what they have learned from Grissom over the years. I liked that Nick didn't chastise Ray about wearing a tie, but just kind of watched as Langston figured out for himself why that wasn't a good idea. Grissom used to do the same, and I found this subtle hommage to him reassuring.

However, I agree with others who have said that the Langston character is doing things that a CSI 1 should not be doing by himself.
I guess the thing that bothers me the most is I feel that they're trying in a way, to make Langston into Grissom. Last week's episode about the corn meal trigger seemed like TPTB were trying to show that Langston was Grissom's equal. I know that Langston is intelligent but I didn't for one moment believe that Langston would be able to figure out the corn meal trigger, given his background. It would have been more believable had Catherine, Nick, Greg, or even Hodges figured it out. They have the training and have been around long enough to know how different things work.

I think the puns at the beginning of the show should be discontinued, or given to Catherine or Brass. They don't suit Langston's character at all. The corny lines were a very integral part of Grissom, as they were part of his personality; that geeky, dorky side of Grissom. However, I do feel that Brass and Catherine have demonstrated before that their character can carry these lines in the intended way..and it's part of their personalities.

I'm hoping that eventually I'll be able to watch CSI in the future without thinking, "What would Grissom do?".

 

[scktwstdfrk]

WOW, well said scktwstdfrk Awesome analysis of the whole issue. and BTW WELCOME

I agree with everything you said:thumbsup:

Thanks. Was just passing through and thought I'd add my 2 cents.
All just my opinions, no offense intended towards anything/anyone.
I just think the clock is ticking down faster than some people think.
Sad, as I only just discovered the show in late 2007.
I think the remaining cast members have probably buffed up their resumes,
and are ready for the inevitable. I'll wish them well and thank them for the show's success to date.
Don't despair, we'll all find something else to amuse ourselves soon enough.

 

[scktwstdfrk]

I respect the fact that you feel that way, I just think that quitting CSI without even trying to give LF a chance is a little ridiculous, and this is of course my opinion. I think that LF is an awesome guy and an even more amazing actor. No one is saying he is replacing WP, but he is doing an awesome job "filling in" for him.

As I said, LF is a great actor in the right venue, but I don't think CSI is it.
Just my opinion. I've enjoyed some of his other work, though.

The ratings have actually stayed the same, which means obviously, picking LF was a good choice.

Although I'm the one who brought up ratings, I think it's a bit premature to say he's a success based on the Grissom to Langston transitional ratings. I still think it's a novelty/curiosity thing about the character change. I'm still watching for that reason. I'm now thinking it might be early next season before there's a measurable ratings change, but I'm not a ratings guy. Call it a gut feel, if you will.

As fas as bringing Langston in as a newbie, I find it interesting. Like when Nick was teaching him how to dust a print, we've never really seen them teach someone how to do that before. So in a way, they are teaching us things too. It's different when you come into a show where they know how to do everything. Here, they are showing him learn in the field as he goes, which to me, is quite realistic.

Had his character been introduced as a veteran CSI from elsewhere, it might work better for me. I think the producers were wrong to allow him to be the rookie that he is. I don't care to watch him learn the how to do the evidence gathering. I want him to outsmart the bad guys and use the evidence to scorch them in the end. We've been through the rookie learns the ropes with most of the rest of the characters. While I get a kick out of some of the forensic tricks they use on the show, if I really wanted to learn about forensics and evidence gathering, I'd watch First 48 or one of the real cops and robbers type shows on Discovery or A&E. I think they probably paint a more accurate picture of the daily lives of real cops and criminologists.
CSI Las Vegas is a very entertaining fantasy show about criminology.
I bet their are real criminologists/CSIs all over the country who absolutely drool:drool: over the toys the CSI LV lab rats get to play with in the fantasy lab.

Yes WP was great, but he's gone. And for some, it is a hole which will be hard to fill, if ever. But for crying out loud give the man a chance at least. Then you would actually have a basis as to why you feel the way you feel.

As I said, I'm still watching for now. I saw something about him wanting to add his wife as a new character on the show. He's only been in a handful of episodes and already he wants to add cast members? Will she be the new veteran CSI I'm longing for? :lol: I just think his character is wrong the way it's been created. Please don't suggest that my opinion is anything more than just that. It's my opinion, based on what I've seen so far. You know what they say about first impressions? I could be right.
btw, no offense. I appreciate your point of view.

 

[Destiny]

Side note if you are new, we discourage back to back post (or multiple posting) if no one has posted after you, remember you have 24 hrs to edit your post to add in anything you need to. No one is in trouble we just want you too keep this in mind for the future. Those who KNOW this rule, this is a friendly reminder you shouldn't need.

 

[myfuturecsi]

Had his character been introduced as a veteran CSI from elsewhere, it might work better for me. I think the producers were wrong to allow him to be the rookie that he is. I don't care to watch him learn the how to do the evidence gathering. I want him to outsmart the bad guys and use the evidence to scorch them in the end.

I have to disagree. I think it's fabulous they are introducing someone of Langton's background as a rookie CSI because it's so different. There's something charming about seeing a man of his age and profession stumbling into a new career.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[wlk68]

Had his character been introduced as a veteran CSI from elsewhere, it might work better for me. I think the producers were wrong to allow him to be the rookie that he is. I don't care to watch him learn the how to do the evidence gathering. I want him to outsmart the bad guys and use the evidence to scorch them in the end.

I have to disagree. I think it's fabulous they are introducing someone of Langton's background as a rookie CSI because it's so different. There's something charming about seeing a man of his age and profession stumbling into a new career.

Just my two cents worth.

I agree with myfuturecsi on this one. If they HAD brought LF in as a much more senior, experienced CSI everyone would be accusing tptb of trying too hard to make him into a Grissom clone. I like the Newbie Factor. It's refreshing. There are lots of people who decide to change careers later in life. I know several people who gave up very lucrative careers in the corporate world to open bakeries or flower shops or whatever. It was less about the money than it was about following their heart.

 

[scktwstdfrk]

Side note if you are new, we discourage back to back post (or multiple posting) if no one has posted after you, remember you have 24 hrs to edit your post to add in anything you need to. No one is in trouble we just want you too keep this in mind for the future. Those who KNOW this rule, this is a friendly reminder you shouldn't need.

I'm guessing that's for me. Sorry, I tried to find/search for some general forum posting rules but can't find any. Could you post me a link to them so that I may avoid future posting faux pas? Thanks.

 

[Destiny]

I'm guessing that's for me. Sorry, I tried to find/search for some general forum posting rules but can't find any. Could you post me a link to them so that I may avoid future posting faux pas? Thanks.

You and a couple others (including regulars).

There is a "Help Guide" tacked at the top of this (LV) forum with a lot of info in it as well as links to everything you will need, and in case you need to refer to something it is always there.

 

[scktwstdfrk]

Thanks Destiny,
Was I being made aware of the chatting, or multiple post rule? I'm not sure I understand the "no back to back" or "multiple posting" rules after reading their descriptions in the "Talk CSI - Rules" document. The reason I ask is that I've posted some opinions on this thread, which have prompted multiple replies. So, I then replied to their comments with further explanations or clarifications of my points of view. Are you saying I should space out my responses to comments about something I've posted which has elicited multiple comments from other board members? Like reply to one, then wait a bit, then reply to the next one, etc.? I do usually have the time to wait, if necessary, but if I were constrained for time online, say at a shared computer, I might not. Sorry, not trying to be difficult, just looking for some insight from you.
btw, how do I get your contact info including email, as it suggests in the rules we take this sort of thing offline in email or PM (which I can't use yet as I'm too new). I tried clicking your name in several places but there's no "contact info" tab.
Thanks.

 

[xenon22]

I really miss Grissom and Warricks character's. While Sara wasn't my favourite, she did bring an interesting dimension to the mix. Grissom and Greg were always my two favourites, but Greg isn't as "interesting" nowadays, especially when paired with Riley. I COMPLETELY agree with the way-early post that she's one dimensional. I can't figure how she will fit in. And Catherine, well I've gotten in trouble before for saying how bad an actress Marg is, and how ridiculous Catherine is, so I won't repeat it. (Oops, I think I just did!!).
As for LF, in general I love him!! I think it's true that had in come in with experience he may have been perceived as "the ringer for Peterson", so rookie is okay.... BUT, I got the impression that he was some sort of savante when it came to the criminal brain-behaviour type stuff. As well as being a medical doctor?!?! (I'm not sure here, because at first I thought he was PhD doctor of crimical psychiatry stuff but then he's in autopsy as Physician doctor; so I may have gotten signals crossed). Either way, SMART dude. So despite being a CSI rookie, I would like to see him use his talents in some way. Who cares that he doesn't know how to lift finger prints, he can analyze, or interogate, or evaluate psychologically. You know...stuff like that!!

It was, however, unacceptable to me that Riley chastized him at one point. I'm thinking "listen there dumb-girlie, do you know WHO you are taking to!!"

The dynamic of the whole show has changed, and since for me, Grissom and Warrick were the meat and potatoes, I'm not sure how much longer I can last.

<<Side Note>> There was a post, were someone likened the one-dimensionality of CSI Miami, with NY. To me that is fascinating because NY is my FAVOURITE. Gary Sinease is AWESOME. Miami is, for me, unwatchable. Catherine and Horatio need to have a "bad characters, played by rotten actors contest".

 

[jafox]

The ratings dropped after Jorja left but that was more to do with the impending writer's strike-all of the shows on tv took a big hit even before the strike because no knew it was coming.

After it was over, the shows had a (and still are) having a hard time getting those viewers back because during the strike, tv viewers found new horribes such as video games, etc.

It really had nothing to do with Jorja.

That's your opinion; I disagree. The writer's strike didn't really affect overall viewership til after the strike and the shows returned. CSI came back sooner than most and was less affected. But that's old news so I don't want to dwell on it. I think we can all agree that losing 3 characters will affect the ratings to some degree. Time will tell.

Back to Ray and Riley; so far they don't compel me to watch for them. Sara was a character I could identify with and really cared about; Riley not so much. And I know why they introduced LF's character the way they did, I just don't find him all that interesting, yet. I just think he is too powerful an actor to keep in the naive newbie role for long. But I do visit other nonCSI boards where many seem to like his character, so casual viewers probably will continue to tune in, and that's why I think CSI will continue to be successful. Because it's not really about what I think, it's about what the other 17 million viewers think.
It all boils down to personal preference, and why people watch a particular show. I will admit that I mostly watched for Sara, but I am still here and still giving it a chance, even though my interest is waning. Greg has always been my second favorite character, so I hope they give him more to do.

 

[Destiny]

Thanks Destiny,
Was I being made aware of the chatting, or multiple post rule? I'm not sure I understand the "no back to back" or "multiple posting" rules after reading their descriptions in the "Talk CSI - Rules" document. The reason I ask is that I've posted some opinions on this thread, which have prompted multiple replies. So, I then replied to their comments with further explanations or clarifications of my points of view. Are you saying I should space out my responses to comments about something I've posted which has elicited multiple comments from other board members? Like reply to one, then wait a bit, then reply to the next one, etc.? I do usually have the time to wait, if necessary, but if I were constrained for time online, say at a shared computer, I might not. Sorry, not trying to be difficult, just looking for some insight from you.

Your welcome. Well my motto is not going to find the answer unless you ask the question right? you were being made aware of the Multiple posting rule only, say you give your opinion and then you get three people who respond and you want to answer all three on each post there is a "Multi Quote" button click that on each post you want to respond to it will turn yellowish, then go down and click reply and those posts will show up in one for you to see just remove what doesn't pertain to your answer and and fill in what you want to say back. - Now no one has posted after you and you only responded to one person, but you see another post that you really wanted to respond to, just click quote copy that quote then back out of that and go into the post you had made and paste it in there and answer it, you have a 24 hr window if no one posts after you to do this. IF someone has posted after you then you may post again, or if the the 24 hrs have past you may post after your last post.

btw, how do I get your contact info including email, as it suggests in the rules we take this sort of thing offline in email or PM (which I can't use yet as I'm too new). I tried clicking your name in several places but there's no "contact info" tab.
Thanks.

When you click a persons nick in a thread you may see a drop down menu of sorts when you see that click "View public profile" that will take you to my profile (or whoever you are trying to reach). If you click my name on the outside of the forum it will just take you automatically to my profile. My email is listed as private, and you know the two week and fifty posts to pm rule so the best you can do is if you have a question in a thread is while you are discussing the topic just space down a little and put in a side not to me and I will see it.

I want to just add that you were just recieving a friendly welcome point and some information everyone just about at some point has recieved this from a moderator to help you better adjust to the board. But that friendly notice wasn't just for you, it was also for some other new folks and regular members who have done the samething. See even members who have been here along time can goof. We try to give friendly reminders out or just refresh folks memories.

Hopefully this has helped you and others who were wondering.

 

[scktwstdfrk]

Thanks Destiny,
Was I being made aware of the chatting, or multiple post rule? I'm not sure I understand the "no back to back" or "multiple posting" rules after reading their descriptions in the "Talk CSI - Rules" document. The reason I ask is that I've posted some opinions on this thread, which have prompted multiple replies. So, I then replied to their comments with further explanations or clarifications of my points of view. Are you saying I should space out my responses to comments about something I've posted which has elicited multiple comments from other board members? Like reply to one, then wait a bit, then reply to the next one, etc.? I do usually have the time to wait, if necessary, but if I were constrained for time online, say at a shared computer, I might not. Sorry, not trying to be difficult, just looking for some insight from you.
Your welcome. Well my motto is not going to find the answer unless you ask the question right? you were being made aware of the Multiple posting rule only, say you give your opinion and then you get three people who respond and you want to answer all three on each post there is a "Multi Quote" button click that on each post you want to respond to it will turn yellowish, then go down and click reply and those posts will show up in one for you to see just remove what doesn't pertain to your answer and and fill in what you want to say back. - Now no one has posted after you and you only responded to one person, but you see another post that you really wanted to respond to, just click quote copy that quote then back out of that and go into the post you had made and paste it in there and answer it, you have a 24 hr window if no one posts after you to do this. IF someone has posted after you then you may post again, or if the the 24 hrs have past you may post after your last post.

When you click a persons nick in a thread you may see a drop down menu of sorts when you see that click "View public profile" that will take you to my profile (or whoever you are trying to reach). If you click my name on the outside of the forum it will just take you automatically to my profile. My email is listed as private, and you know the two week and fifty posts to pm rule so the best you can do is if you have a question in a thread is while you are discussing the topic just space down a little and put in a side not to me and I will see it.

I want to just add that you were just recieving a friendly welcome point and some information everyone just about at some point has recieved this from a moderator to help you better adjust to the board. But that friendly notice wasn't just for you, it was also for some other new folks and regular members who have done the samething. See even members who have been here along time can goof. We try to give friendly reminders out or just refresh folks memories.

Hopefully this has helped you and others who were wondering.

OK, I'm just testing the multiple quote thing to see if I can capture multiple comments in the same reply. So far, it seems to work. I believe I've captured my question post, and your answer post. And trimmed a bit of mine out for practice.
I'm going to ask one more question. Why is there a multiple posting rule?
I believe it was mentioned in or near the "spamming" section of the "Talk CSI - Rules".
I belong to several other message boards on a range of different topics and none of them have this restriction. So I'm curious. Is it a bandwidth usage thing?
Thanks again for the tip on the multiple quote button.

 

[Criminologist86]

I can't believe we're all still discussing this! LOL It's not that I'm not enjoying it, but you'd think we'd have all found new fish to fry ;p But please, by all means, carry on ;p

It's very interesting how the Writer's Strike got brought up, and how the viewer numbers may have changed because of it. I would agree, that, clearly while it was going on, nobody was able to watch their 'regularly scheduled programming" because, well, it wasn't on...but people came back, and CSI gained even more viewers.

LF's character introduction certianly didn't help; I'm not saying that Billy or the writers did anything wrong in introducing Langston the way they did, but I think it could have been a little more "eased into". I'm all for waiting to see how he does with the show but overall I think it'll continue to be a hard transition for some fans.
It's possible, given Langston's age, that he could have both a MD and a PhD, some people can do both at the same time (like side by side), and maybe that's what he did...

If anything, I'd say Marg & George (Cath & Nicky) are the glue holding the show together at this point...if it weren't for Marg, that entire lab would have fallen apart and the show would have died a painful death upon Billy's departure. This is NOT to degrade Robert or Eric's abilities, but leaders are leaders...not everyone can be.