Season 11 "Spoiler Lab" Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
byline said:
jtd94 said:
I feel the writers are doing a better job with some of the crime storylines, but I still would like to see some well written (meaning non-cliche) workplace drama that would bring out some of the spunk in our CSI's. Grissom was often up against the bureaucracy as supervisor.
Click to expand...
But even that feels "old hat" to me. Maybe it's because of the plethora of crime shows on TV, but how many times have we seen that played out? If it were done imaginatively, then yes, that would be great. But it seems to me that so many of these things have already been done so many times before. Nothing new under the sun, and all that.:cool:
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's pretty much the problem with all the crime procedurals; it's all been done before. Not much originality out there, especially on the CSI's. Mixing up the cast may be the only way to create something that seems new. We'll see. :)
 
h, I completely agree about the Sara vs. Sofia vs. Catherine ill-contrived conflicts. I hated those.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. I also didn't like how personal the battles became. Womena re catty to each other in real life as it is, we don't need to see it on TV where we wish to escape it.
 
myfuturecsi said:
h, I completely agree about the Sara vs. Sofia vs. Catherine ill-contrived conflicts. I hated those.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you. I also didn't like how personal the battles became. Womena re catty to each other in real life as it is, we don't need to see it on TV where we wish to escape it.
Click to expand...
While that does happen, I think it's a stereotype that that's the way women are. I'm not one for believing our own press ("If women ruled the world, there would be no wars," etc.), but by the same token, women do work well together, too. As with either sex, it's a matter of getting the right personalities together, and if you have markedly different personalities, then it's about getting those individuals to understand one another well enough to realize that conflicts rarely start out based on something personal (even though most of the time, that's what people think it is); it's a clash of personalities, often between personalities on opposite ends of the spectrum. When people take the time to really understand one another, then they rarely resort to default behaviors that they may have learned from their parents, who learned it from their parents . . . and on it goes.

IMO, taking the Myers-Briggs personality inventory (and the training sessions that go with it) should be a standard requirement for any job, just like filling out an application. So many workplace conflicts could be resolved or even avoided, if people just had a basic understanding of the differences in personalities.
 
About the story originality problem on CSI there's one way of solving that problem. Put less emphasis on the story and more emphasis on the characters and how they effect the story. CSI may have cookie-cutter plotlines but no other show has characters like Sara, Greggo, Nicky, Cath, ect. CSI should start trying to use that to their advantage instead of giving the fans more serial killers that end up having daddy issues *cough* Dr. Jekyll *cough*.

This is just a random thought but why do people still live in Las Vegas?:confused: There's a serial killer every year it seems like. People are always dying. What's next, TPTB? The Barnes and Noble Strangler?? The McDonald's Slasher??
 
AFIS said:
About the story originality problem on CSI there's one way of solving that problem. Put less emphasis on the story and more emphasis on the characters and how they effect the story.
Click to expand...

That's actually not remotely fresh.

For starters, that IS what CSI's been doing off and on this season, with some fairly mixed results.

Secondly, there are plenty of other procedural shows that also do it. (NCIS, for one - though it's been less so this season, which may be one reason why this season of NCIS hasn't been as good as past ones.)

Thirdly, the whole thing that set CSI apart was that it wasn't the characters who were important, it was the science and I have to admit, I MISS scenes where the science and the job gets to really take centre stage.

Don't get me wrong; I love character development and I don't think CSI would work half so well without the strong set of characters the show has, but I really, REALLY don't think focussing on the characters to the exclusion of the science is the way to go.
 
It's all up the TPTB and what they think is relevant, and what they think is not;) I think they know the score and what brings the fans in to watch the show. And Wikipeida does change but the name "For Langston" would be relevant, beings he got stabbed in the finale and it might be all about his recovery and maybe Nate as well, and why he stabbed Ray:eek:
 
csifanviki said:
episode 1 will be called 'For Langston ':bolian:
my source is the amazing wikipedia:)
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that's true. The writers have only just written the first four episodes. They still have to go through all the other processes of being scripted and approved. Besides, it's an amateurish title. Whoever edited that wiki page is copying Season 9. I like to think the writers are more creative than that. At least I hope so...
 
I really couldn't care less what they call it :rolleyes: I just hope that Raymond is going to be O.K :( I also hope that this season is going to be as good or event better then the last :thumbsup:
 
I really couldn't care less what they call it :rolleyes: I just hope that Raymond is going to be O.K :( I also hope that this season is going to be as good or even better then the last :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top