Season 11 "Spoiler Lab" Discussion Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't like it in a way and yet it is what makes a show sometimes more exciting and tense. I mean almost all shows at some point put their characters in peril...it is nothing new.
 
I love the CSI in peril they're intense excting and intriguing.. what will happen:eek: a nail bitter.They still do the same as they used too, but then again it's not the same as it used to be, maybe better to excellent And I don't watch CSI for one "cast member" as I like them all. They all have their own quirky, interesting personalties, and skills. It would be dull and boring if is was the same old same old as way back then. To me, the characters and the stories have evolved and it is more real and life like now. For me it's easier to related to, then it used to be, but alas it is a TV show like all the others out there. But with CSI, whole team is so in tune:bolian:
 
Last edited:
I agree, the CSI in peril thing is getting too... unbelievable. Makes it almost hard to watch knowing someone is going to be put in jeopardy. What happened to the forensic aspect of the show. :confused:

For me these past few seasons have been recapturing that. Season 10 slipped but this season was bringing it back. Now with all this DRAMA it's getting pretty ridiculous. :shifty: :rolleyes:

It's all about the ratings I guess. CSI has been on TV for a decade. Keeping the show fresh, bringing in new viewers while keeping long time viewers isn't easy, I guess I'm not liking the fact that someone has to be in peril to do that.
 
Personally I love a good dose of angst and CSI's in peril...but I'd much rather it stay in fanfiction. Having the CSI's in constant danger makes it all the more harder to find the show realistic (and it's already hard enough to believe its 'night shift' working in a 'crime' lab since all we get is daytime murders), and the cliffhangers are starting to drag since we've had five in the past six years.

Honestly the only way I'll ever properly enjoy a CSI-in-peril storyline again is if they bring back Tarantino to do it. (So what if its been five or so years, a girl can dream right? :lol:)

I already get my in-peril fix from Miami, I don't need it from CSI. Course, since the spoilers are from Carol we probably have nothing to worry about anyway :rolleyes:
 
Thing is, it could be something very brief, not necessarily the focus of the whole episode. I mean, the one where Cath and Vartann were in the hotel room and she got attacked...she was in peril, but for all of about 30 seconds and it fit with what was happening in the episode. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And as we know, this information coming from CM...it's likely to be WAY less than what she says it is. ;)
 
I hated that part of the episode.....
But yeah, I understand what you are saying.

What CM does is drop bits and pieces of stuff, with the words 'team in danger' and 'life on the line' to get us all talking.

Very clever because it seems to be working. :eek:
 
Desertwreath said:
And I don't watch CSI for one "cast member" as I like them all. They all have their own quirky, interesting personalties, and skills.
Click to expand...
Well, I usually watch for Marg, Jorja, Eric & Liz - but Marg's screen time has been decreased, Jorja is only in various episodes now, Eric's screen time has always been limited, and they kicked Liz out to the curb. So guess I don't have much reason to watch. The way they had gone back to more of emphasis on forensics (like the good old days of the show) was starting to become a highlight as well, but looks like they're messing with that again.

Desertwreath said:
To me, it's evolved and is more real and life like now.
Click to expand...
I very much disagree with that. I can't imagine Daniel Holstein, Yolanda McCleary or Liz Devine (all real CSIs) have ever drawn their guns or been in peril as much as any of the CSIs on tv. It's become totally UNrealistic.
 
kaylyne said:
Desertwreath said:
To me, it's evolved and is more real and life like now.
Click to expand...
I very much disagree with that. I can't imagine Daniel Holstein, Yolanda McCleary or Liz Devine (all real CSIs) have ever drawn their guns or been in peril as much as any of the CSIs on tv. It's become totally UNrealistic.
Click to expand...

It seems we have forgotten this is a TV show and not reality. The really don't follow reality that much so why get upset over it.

I don't mind the CSIs in peril, it doesn't happen as much as everyone think it does and yeah, if they're really going to do it right, bring back Tarantino.

He should have done the 200th episode anyways and not Friedken (or however you spell it).

Oh and real CSIs get in peril too. Here in Chicago a crime scene tech was shot in the head and killed while he was processing a robbery crime scene.

And the retired officer who was robbed? Murdered too.
 
Exactly it is a TV Show...a drama. It isn't a documentary or anything like that. Things are always going to be unrealistic. From day one on the show the time they solve a crime...majority of the time in one to two days is totally unrealistic yet no one complains about that.

I watch it for the angst and drama and good stories, I feel I still get that the majority of the time.
 
SnowWonder said:
Exactly it is a TV Show...a drama. It isn't a documentary or anything like that. Things are always going to be unrealistic. From day one on the show the time they solve a crime...majority of the time in one to two days is totally unrealistic yet no one complains about that.

I watch it for the angst and drama and good stories, I feel I still get that the majority of the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, television is never the same as real life. For example, Charlie Sheen would never get as much action in real life as he does on his sit com. Ummm, okay, bad example....:guffaw:
 
In some ways, I can accept stretching the truth - speeding up the forensics, so each case is wrapped up neatly in one episode. It would really become confusing if cases extended over weeks, and lab results came in three episodes later. At the same time though, I do expect a certain amount of "reality" within that framework. It just doesn't sit right with me that the same five people can constantly be put in situations that are so dangerous or have a personal connection.

In the earlier seasons, it seemed much better - the personal or dangerous episodes were few and far between. And as a result, they were more impactful. As the amount of drama/danger/angst increases, it takes more and more to make an impact, and eventually, it just becomes ridiculous to everyone.

Personally, I'm hoping that it is just hyperbole, intended to create a buzz (and succeeding, it seems :)), and that the episodes continue with the quality we've seen so far this season.
 
I knew Greg's life would be in danger after I read the original spoiler. I love Greg getting some action and a story line but like I mentioned before why is it always a CSI's life in peril? Even so I am still looking forward to it because its Greg, and to be honest I do love me some angst once in a while.
 
Marlee Matlin talks CSI Chicago and there's a few new spoilers about the The Two Mrs. Grissoms, we know his mom and ex's names

Matlin guest-stars in an episode of the original "CSI," tentatively scheduled to air Thursday, Feb. 3. In "The Two Mrs. Grissoms," which has been in production this past week, Matlin plays Julia Holden, a professor at a college for the deaf, whose mentor is fellow professor Betty Grissom (Phyllis Frelich), mother of former head CSI Gil Grissom (William Petersen).

This causes tension with Grissom's current wife, CSI Sara Sidle (Jorja Fox), who simultaneously must deal with her mother-in-law and with Julia, who's also Grissom's ex-girlfriend. It doesn't help that both Julia and Mrs. Grissom are deaf and can speak to each other in American Sign Language, which Sara is struggling to learn.

As to whether Mrs. Grissom might have preferred Julia to Sara as a daughter-in-law, Matlin speaks in sign language through an interpreter, telling Zap2it, "She adores me better, I know that. I just had to say that."
Click to expand...
 
sharp52092 said:
Marlee Matlin talks CSI Chicago and there's a few new spoilers about the The Two Mrs. Grissoms, we know his mom and ex's names

Matlin guest-stars in an episode of the original "CSI," tentatively scheduled to air Thursday, Feb. 3. In "The Two Mrs. Grissoms," which has been in production this past week, Matlin plays Julia Holden, a professor at a college for the deaf, whose mentor is fellow professor Betty Grissom (Phyllis Frelich), mother of former head CSI Gil Grissom (William Petersen).

This causes tension with Grissom's current wife, CSI Sara Sidle (Jorja Fox), who simultaneously must deal with her mother-in-law and with Julia, who's also Grissom's ex-girlfriend. It doesn't help that both Julia and Mrs. Grissom are deaf and can speak to each other in American Sign Language, which Sara is struggling to learn.

As to whether Mrs. Grissom might have preferred Julia to Sara as a daughter-in-law, Matlin speaks in sign language through an interpreter, telling Zap2it, "She adores me better, I know that. I just had to say that."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting, and for the link! But, *sigh*, we all know it's a matter of who Grissom prefers, and not his mother. :)
And, Betty? Who thought of that? Maybe a wink to Betty White fans? LOL
Still, I'm excited about this episode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top