Season 11 "Spoiler Lab" Discussion Part 4

[PerfectAnomaly]

Although I suspect that fans worry much more about credit placement and screentime than the actual actors...:shifty:

I wouldn't count on it. They changed the NY opening credits to separate the two leads from the supporting cast and I highly doubt it was because the fans were clamouring for it. I would suspect things like billing order and amount of screen time matter a lot to actors.

 

[Kasey47]

Although I suspect that fans worry much more about credit placement and screentime than the actual actors...:shifty:

I wouldn't count on it. They changed the NY opening credits to separate the two leads from the supporting cast and I highly doubt it was because the fans were clamouring for it. I would suspect things like billing order and amount of screen time matter a lot to actors.

Well that kinda throws a kink in the whole "we are family" feeling I've always gotten from the CSI actors if they think that. You know the whole there is no "I" in team philosophy. And I am speaking solely about the Vegas cast since I don't know much about the behind the scenes dynamics of the NY cast...

 

[Robinjn]

Although I suspect that fans worry much more about credit placement and screentime than the actual actors...:shifty:

I wouldn't count on it. They changed the NY opening credits to separate the two leads from the supporting cast and I highly doubt it was because the fans were clamouring for it. I would suspect things like billing order and amount of screen time matter a lot to actors.

Well that kinda throws a kink in the whole "we are family" feeling I've always gotten from the CSI actors if they think that. You know the whole there is no "I" in team philosophy. And I am speaking solely about the Vegas cast since I don't know much about the behind the scenes dynamics of the NY cast...

Kasey, I think it's still there. Both Marg and Jorja had LESS screen time written in to their contracts for this season. Laurence Fishburne, because he replaced William Petersen, is getting the appropriate screen time for his top billing--he's been in every episode except 418/427 since he signed on. And Paul Guilfoyle has always been billed last, but that hasn't necessarily equated to less screen time than some of the people billed before him like Wallace Langham and Eric Szmanda. It may matter to some actors, but somehow not so much to the CSI: LV actors, I would say.

 

[Ladybronco]

Although I suspect that fans worry much more about credit placement and screentime than the actual actors...:shifty:

I wouldn't count on it. They changed the NY opening credits to separate the two leads from the supporting cast and I highly doubt it was because the fans were clamouring for it. I would suspect things like billing order and amount of screen time matter a lot to actors.

I think I agree with Perfect Anomaly here. I remember disliking it when they did that. Even though Gary and Melina were the leads, I didn't feel they needed separated out like that to appear even before the CSI NY lettering appeared. I felt things had been just right before that. I love that theme song too, but when they added that tinkly opening to it, it sort of destroyed an awesome song for me, lol.

I think Robinjn has a point too, regarding screen time and Brass being last. In all of the shows, the main detective (Brass, Flack & Tripp) is last, but that doesn't limit their screen time, since the detectives are necessary to the roster. There is usually a *with* or *and* to go with the last billing in many shows.

 

[Rizzoli]

Tripp in "CSI:Miami" actually isn't last, he's between Jonathan Togo & Eva LaRue, Adam Rodriguez is last.

I actually loved it when they changed the NY opening, Gary & Melina deserved to be put above the rest of the cast, their characters were/are the main focus of the show, as is Sela's "Jo".

CSI could always do an "NCIS", that is, after losing its original leading lady (Sasha Alexander) they moved the person credited after her (Michael Weatherly) into second and put the new leading lady third (Cote de Pablo).

I can see the credits looking like this:
starring Laurence Fishburne, George Eads, Jorja Fox, Eric Szmanda, Elisabeth Harnois, Robert David Hall, Wallace Langham, David Berman, and Paul Guilfoyle...

That is, if Marg is removed from the credits, they could keep her for, say 10 episodes, but have them episodes spread out over the 22/23 in the season, so she's in the credits for them all.

UNLESS they decide to make the show about the rookie's and put Langston & Brody (both CSI Level 2's, I believe) as the top 2.

 

[Ladybronco]

Tripp in "CSI:Miami" actually isn't last, he's between Jonathan Togo & Eva LaRue, Adam Rodriguez is last.

I actually loved it when they changed the NY opening, Gary & Melina deserved to be put above the rest of the cast, their characters were/are the main focus of the show, as is Sela's "Jo".

CSI could always do an "NCIS", that is, after losing its original leading lady (Sasha Alexander) they moved the person credited after her (Michael Weatherly) into second and put the new leading lady third (Cote de Pablo).

I can see the credits looking like this:
starring Laurence Fishburne, George Eads, Jorja Fox, Eric Szmanda, Elisabeth Harnois, Robert David Hall, Wallace Langham, David Berman, and Paul Guilfoyle...

That is, if Marg is removed from the credits, they could keep her for, say 10 episodes, but have them episodes spread out over the 22/23 in the season, so she's in the credits for them all.

UNLESS they decide to make the show about the rookie's and put Langston & Brody (both CSI Level 2's, I believe) as the top 2.

You're right, I forgot about Adam being last, and I didn't realize Tripp was between the other 2. I watch all 3 shows, but Miami is last on my list, lol. I've watched NY the longest, and I do like Jo, just as much, if not more than Stella. Danny, Mac and Flack are my favorites though. I agree with your comparison to NCIS, that would work for me, I wouldn't mind George following LF, even if it does mean 2 men listed first in the credits. It works for Mark & Michael, you don't always have to have a woman second. Your last comment about the possibility of Langston & Brody being first would be the absolute worst scenario in my mind. I think as a George fan, I would be the one screaming on his behalf :guffaw:

 

[CazzBlade]

Being an 'and' at the end of the credits is usually a better placement than 3rd, 4th.. etc. In films it tends to be given to the person who isn't the lead but very well known and played an important role. Also, credit listings are usually negotiated in the actors contract.

I don't see a problem with LF being followed by GE in the credits, especially if Catherine is still in a few eps during the season. I hope either Frankie or Sofia are at least recurring characters next season too.

I'm reserving comment on the new girl until I see her on the show, but I do hope I like her.

 

[Frosch]

I frankly do not see JF as a lead actress. Considering her age and the fact that she has never been a lead actress before, I don’t see how she suddenly now would be considered lead material. The fact that she’s the last and only woman standing isn’t really reason enough, I don’t think? Does there even have to be a female ‘lead’ on the show?

I'm curious as to what her age has to do with it? Are you saying she's too young or too old?

I probably could have reworded that slightly better. What I mean is that it is unusual if not unprecedented for a supporting actress who has been in the business for over 20 years to now suddenly become a lead actress. Hollywood isn't known to be particularly kind to actresses over a certain age. I am also remembering how upset people were at CBS at the beginning of the season when they cut back the roles of the two females on Criminal Minds and didn't renew the contract of Liz Vassey. I think terms such as misogynistic amongst others were used to describe their actions. I guess I just don't have high hopes that CBS would suddenly change their attitude. My comment was less geared to JF per se but to the attitude of Hollywood in general towards women of a certain age. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

To make Jorja the female lead before George is made the male lead? Ummm yeah, that would be wrong and no I'm not just saying that because I'm a George fan.

I'm not a big Greg fan either, but I do think it was wrong to put Jorja back in the credits before Eric.

She left the show and doesn't want to come back full-time so she should be second to last in the credits or after Eric.

Well, I'm looking forward to how Harnois' character plays out. I think it could be interesting. They could use some 'conflict' on the team. :lol:

 

[Kasey47]

The point I was making is that we as fans are thinking that this and that is wrong. We are projecting OUR feelings onto someone that might not actually feel that way. That's all. So whether or not one is a fan of whoever doesn't negate the fact that if they are not saying that they mind, then really why should we?

 

[Robinjn]

Well, I'm looking forward to how Harnois' character plays out. I think it could be interesting. They could use some 'conflict' on the team. :lol:

I think it could make for a very interesting dynamic. The spoilers say she is estranged from Ecklie, her father. So why does she come to Las Vegas--to patch up their relationship or to stick it to dear old dad? And Nick will have the dubious task of being her supervisor, so he might be caught in the middle of daughter (his subordinate) and dad (his boss). And if there was romantic interest from either (or both?) Nick and Greg--that could make things stickier still. Either way, we'll probably be seeing more of Ecklie and perhaps another side of him altogether.

 

[PraetorCorvinus]

I frankly do not see JF as a lead actress. Considering her age and the fact that she has never been a lead actress before, I don’t see how she suddenly now would be considered lead material. The fact that she’s the last and only woman standing isn’t really reason enough, I don’t think? Does there even have to be a female ‘lead’ on the show?

I'm curious as to what her age has to do with it? Are you saying she's too young or too old?

I probably could have reworded that slightly better. What I mean is that it is unusual if not unprecedented for a supporting actress who has been in the business for over 20 years to now suddenly become a lead actress. Hollywood isn't known to be particularly kind to actresses over a certain age. I am also remembering how upset people were at CBS at the beginning of the season when they cut back the roles of the two females on Criminal Minds and didn't renew the contract of Liz Vassey. I think terms such as misogynistic amongst others were used to describe their actions. I guess I just don't have high hopes that CBS would suddenly change their attitude. My comment was less geared to JF per se but to the attitude of Hollywood in general towards women of a certain age. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

Okay. I understand you now and completely agree. Hollywood is incredibly unfair toward women. It seems that at least in regards to television, and CSI in particular, that women over a certain age are at least given a little more respect than film and some hold lead status (Marg, Sela).

 

[Desertwind]

Not to be a skeptic, but since the show hasn't technically been renewed and the other people like George, Eric, Paul, Laurence, Jorja, Marg do not have contracts so they are not technically appearing next season YET....why is there reports about a new series regular that no one has seen yet? Has not TPTB learned anything about CSI fans and bringing in new "untested" people?

WOW, this really does make sense to me:thumbsup: So doesn't this give the credibility to there being a S/12? So we get to have a newbie, that most fans have never heard of, but we don't know if the stars that are all ready on CSI have signed new contracts yet? Crazy:wtf:

 

[Ladybronco]

Not to be a skeptic, but since the show hasn't technically been renewed and the other people like George, Eric, Paul, Laurence, Jorja, Marg do not have contracts so they are not technically appearing next season YET....why is there reports about a new series regular that no one has seen yet? Has not TPTB learned anything about CSI fans and bringing in new "untested" people?

WOW, this really does make sense to me:thumbsup: So doesn't this give the credibility to there being a S/12? So we get to have a newbie, that most fans have never heard of, but we don't know if the stars that are all ready on CSI have signed new contracts yet? Crazy:wtf:

I was surprised that the new character story was out and about already also, being there no *confirmation* of a season 12. They've done the same thing with NCIS LA, added a new recurring character but no official season 3 confirmation (that I've heard, I've only seen a twittered confirmation from one actor). It bugs the heck out of me that the networks wait until late May, in most cases, before confirming things. In my opinion it would obviously make story writing and filming much easier for everyone if all the shows knew their fate by early March at least, then they could at least know whether they're writing for a season finale or a series finale. I hate what they've done to NY. Fingers crossed they get this whole Haskell thing over and can start thinking about an awesome new season!! :bolian:

 

[DJRideout]

I was surprised that the new character story was out and about already also, being there no *confirmation* of a season 12.

I'm a little surprised too, but tptb must continue to work....and assume there will be a season 12 until told differently from the network itself.

But I agree with ladybronco..if they knew the fates of the actors (resigning or not) by March month, heck even if the series is picked up for another season or not, it could really help in the writing department. Storylines started or clued up, who'd be back for next season so the planning/writing could be done with much more ease. But I'm sure there is a good reason for why it's done when it's done.