Season 12 Spoiler Lab Discussion Part 2

[hiphugger17]

Seems to me the team would have been punished REGARDLESS of whether Ray was found guilty and went to prison, or was cleared and was getting on with his life. Don't they all have to move on in some way anyway? Going forward, what difference does it make, really? Would you enjoy the upcoming season more, knowing that Ray was rotting in prison? Everyone else who left got a nice, noble send-off. LF should be no different.

Someone who murdered another human being should get a "nice, noble send-off??" I strongly disagree with that, especially when the rest of the team is dealing with the fall out from giving Ray the benefit of the doubt, supporting him and in some cases breaking the law for him. I get that everyone is responsible for their own actions, but they did what they did because they considered Ray a friend and colleague. He betrays them and gets to skate while they pay consequences. Someone like that shouldn't be sent off in a good way in my opinion. Just because people respect LF as an actor doesn't mean the character of Ray deserves a happy ending.

You can say Ray murdered Haskell, the rest of the team broke the law, blah blah blah, til you're blue in the face. If IA clears him, and it sounds like they do, all the opinions to the contrary ain't gonna change that fact. You may not think Ray deserves a happy ending, but that's what he's getting. Deal with it. Life goes on. And neener neener! :guffaw:

No it doesn't change canon if we keep repeating how in disagreement we are about Langston getting to walk after committing murder and making the team go through what they are going through. It will not change the fact. What I really dislike is the message it sends out to the public:

It's ok to kill someone if they really deserve it. It's ok for a cop/csi to be a vigilante if they have a nemesis who really deserves it. It's so ok that you get a second chance in life.

THIS message I will keep criticizing and talking against until I am blue and purple and every other color in the planet!

 

[Robinjn]

Someone who murdered another human being should get a "nice, noble send-off??" I strongly disagree with that, especially when the rest of the team is dealing with the fall out from giving Ray the benefit of the doubt, supporting him and in some cases breaking the law for him. I get that everyone is responsible for their own actions, but they did what they did because they considered Ray a friend and colleague. He betrays them and gets to skate while they pay consequences. Someone like that shouldn't be sent off in a good way in my opinion. Just because people respect LF as an actor doesn't mean the character of Ray deserves a happy ending.

You can say Ray murdered Haskell, the rest of the team broke the law, blah blah blah, til you're blue in the face. If IA clears him, and it sounds like they do, all the opinions to the contrary ain't gonna change that fact. You may not think Ray deserves a happy ending, but that's what he's getting. Deal with it. Life goes on. And neener neener! :guffaw:

No it doesn't change canon if we keep repeating how in disagreement we are about Langston getting to walk after committing murder and making the team go through what they are going through. It will not change the fact. What I really dislike is the message it sends out to the public:

It's ok to kill someone if they really deserve it. It's ok for a cop/csi to be a vigilante if they have a nemesis who really deserves it. It's so ok that you get a second chance in life.

THIS message I will keep criticizing and talking against until I am blue and purple and every other color in the planet!

Message to the public? Please! It's a television show for cryin' out loud! It's meant to entertain, not educate. Just because they air all these FICTIONAL stories about gruesome MADE UP things people do to each other and sometimes the CSIs (aka FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) don't figure it out and/or they get who did it wrong or the perp somehow goes free--doesn't mean they condone this stuff. That's a little overboard, in my opinion.

The only public service announcement I ever recall seeing on CSI was the one WP did after Lying Down with Dogs.

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

You can say Ray murdered Haskell, the rest of the team broke the law, blah blah blah, til you're blue in the face. If IA clears him, and it sounds like they do, all the opinions to the contrary ain't gonna change that fact. You may not think Ray deserves a happy ending, but that's what he's getting. Deal with it. Life goes on. And neener neener! :guffaw:

No it doesn't change canon if we keep repeating how in disagreement we are about Langston getting to walk after committing murder and making the team go through what they are going through. It will not change the fact. What I really dislike is the message it sends out to the public:

It's ok to kill someone if they really deserve it. It's ok for a cop/csi to be a vigilante if they have a nemesis who really deserves it. It's so ok that you get a second chance in life.

THIS message I will keep criticizing and talking against until I am blue and purple and every other color in the planet!

Message to the public? Please! It's a television show for cryin' out loud! It's meant to entertain, not educate. Just because they air all these FICTIONAL stories about gruesome MADE UP things people do to each other and sometimes the CSIs (aka FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) don't figure it out and/or they get who did it wrong or the perp somehow goes free--doesn't mean they condone this stuff. That's a little overboard, in my opinion.

The only public service announcement I ever recall seeing on CSI was the one WP did after Lying Down with Dogs.

You're right. It is a fictional TV show. I just don't happen to find stories where it's deemed OK for a core member of the team to murder someone on a franchise that puts out stories saying it's NOT OK for anyone else to murder someone to be very entertaining. Since this is a message board about said show, I express my distaste for such things along with the things I like about the show. Does it change canon events? Obviously not, but what's the point of a message board if you can't talk about what you dislike along with what you like?

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

You can say Ray murdered Haskell, the rest of the team broke the law, blah blah blah, til you're blue in the face. If IA clears him, and it sounds like they do, all the opinions to the contrary ain't gonna change that fact. You may not think Ray deserves a happy ending, but that's what he's getting. Deal with it. Life goes on. And neener neener! :guffaw:

No it doesn't change canon if we keep repeating how in disagreement we are about Langston getting to walk after committing murder and making the team go through what they are going through. It will not change the fact. What I really dislike is the message it sends out to the public:

It's ok to kill someone if they really deserve it. It's ok for a cop/csi to be a vigilante if they have a nemesis who really deserves it. It's so ok that you get a second chance in life.

THIS message I will keep criticizing and talking against until I am blue and purple and every other color in the planet!

Message to the public? Please! It's a television show for cryin' out loud! It's meant to entertain, not educate. Just because they air all these FICTIONAL stories about gruesome MADE UP things people do to each other and sometimes the CSIs (aka FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) don't figure it out and/or they get who did it wrong or the perp somehow goes free--doesn't mean they condone this stuff. That's a little overboard, in my opinion.

The only public service announcement I ever recall seeing on CSI was the one WP did after Lying Down with Dogs.

Actually quite a few of the stores we see on CSI are from actual cases. For instance, episode (crap the name escapes me), the one where it's Nick and Sara's case, but Catherine gets it. The guy who kills the aspiring showgirl with the pretense he's going to take her photos? That was an actual case and '48 Hours' did an episode on it.

And vigilantism happens. Now is the show going to make them do it, probably not, but CSI does teach the criminal what they can get away with and how to do it.

And no matter what, unfortnately there are some people out there that will take it as a message that killing someone is okay, if it's justified.

 

[vegaslights]

You can say Ray murdered Haskell, the rest of the team broke the law, blah blah blah, til you're blue in the face. If IA clears him, and it sounds like they do, all the opinions to the contrary ain't gonna change that fact. You may not think Ray deserves a happy ending, but that's what he's getting. Deal with it. Life goes on. And neener neener! :guffaw:

No it doesn't change canon if we keep repeating how in disagreement we are about Langston getting to walk after committing murder and making the team go through what they are going through. It will not change the fact. What I really dislike is the message it sends out to the public:

It's ok to kill someone if they really deserve it. It's ok for a cop/csi to be a vigilante if they have a nemesis who really deserves it. It's so ok that you get a second chance in life.

THIS message I will keep criticizing and talking against until I am blue and purple and every other color in the planet!

Message to the public? Please! It's a television show for cryin' out loud! It's meant to entertain, not educate. Just because they air all these FICTIONAL stories about gruesome MADE UP things people do to each other and sometimes the CSIs (aka FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) don't figure it out and/or they get who did it wrong or the perp somehow goes free--doesn't mean they condone this stuff. That's a little overboard, in my opinion.

The only public service announcement I ever recall seeing on CSI was the one WP did after Lying Down with Dogs.

Your remark about CSI being meant for entertainment and not for education is not entirely accurate. Very early on in the series, producers and cast members went on the record stating how happy they were to be a part of something that was both entertaining and educating to the audience. They were--and still are--thrilled that so many viewers decided to get into the field of forensic science because of the show. Yes, they will take some creative liberties (you can't process DNA in 45 seconds!), but they do try to be as accurate as possible.

ETA: Speedy, that episode is "After the Show."

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

ETA: Speedy, that episode is "After the Show."

Thanks!

 

[Robinjn]

No it doesn't change canon if we keep repeating how in disagreement we are about Langston getting to walk after committing murder and making the team go through what they are going through. It will not change the fact. What I really dislike is the message it sends out to the public:

It's ok to kill someone if they really deserve it. It's ok for a cop/csi to be a vigilante if they have a nemesis who really deserves it. It's so ok that you get a second chance in life.

THIS message I will keep criticizing and talking against until I am blue and purple and every other color in the planet!

Message to the public? Please! It's a television show for cryin' out loud! It's meant to entertain, not educate. Just because they air all these FICTIONAL stories about gruesome MADE UP things people do to each other and sometimes the CSIs (aka FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) don't figure it out and/or they get who did it wrong or the perp somehow goes free--doesn't mean they condone this stuff. That's a little overboard, in my opinion.

The only public service announcement I ever recall seeing on CSI was the one WP did after Lying Down with Dogs.

Your remark about CSI being meant for entertainment and not for education is not entirely accurate. Very early on in the series, producers and cast members went on the record stating how happy they were to be a part of something that was both entertaining and educating to the audience. They were--and still are--thrilled that so many viewers decided to get into the field of forensic science because of the show. Yes, they will take some creative liberties (you can't process DNA in 45 seconds!), but they do try to be as accurate as possible.

ETA: Speedy, that episode is "After the Show."

That's all well and good, and I admit that I've personally learned alot of things from CSI over the years. And yes, some--some--of the crimes are based on real stuff. But I have yet to read about criminals who tried to get away with something because they saw how to do it on CSI. People are going on and on like this is some kind of weekly morality play, and CSI is far from that.

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

Message to the public? Please! It's a television show for cryin' out loud! It's meant to entertain, not educate. Just because they air all these FICTIONAL stories about gruesome MADE UP things people do to each other and sometimes the CSIs (aka FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) don't figure it out and/or they get who did it wrong or the perp somehow goes free--doesn't mean they condone this stuff. That's a little overboard, in my opinion.

The only public service announcement I ever recall seeing on CSI was the one WP did after Lying Down with Dogs.

Your remark about CSI being meant for entertainment and not for education is not entirely accurate. Very early on in the series, producers and cast members went on the record stating how happy they were to be a part of something that was both entertaining and educating to the audience. They were--and still are--thrilled that so many viewers decided to get into the field of forensic science because of the show. Yes, they will take some creative liberties (you can't process DNA in 45 seconds!), but they do try to be as accurate as possible.

ETA: Speedy, that episode is "After the Show."

That's all well and good, and I admit that I personally learned alot of things from CSI over the years. And yes, some--some--of the crimes are based on real stuff. But I have yet to read about criminals who tried to get away with something because they saw it on CSI. But people are going on and on like this is some kind of weekly morality play, and CSI is far from that.

It's not a weekly morality play, but the message that vigilante justice is wrong even if the person was a scumbag has been prevalent in the franchise for a long time. To make it be OK for members of the team is really grating and annoying and seems hypocritical.

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

Message to the public? Please! It's a television show for cryin' out loud! It's meant to entertain, not educate. Just because they air all these FICTIONAL stories about gruesome MADE UP things people do to each other and sometimes the CSIs (aka FICTIONAL CHARACTERS) don't figure it out and/or they get who did it wrong or the perp somehow goes free--doesn't mean they condone this stuff. That's a little overboard, in my opinion.

The only public service announcement I ever recall seeing on CSI was the one WP did after Lying Down with Dogs.

Your remark about CSI being meant for entertainment and not for education is not entirely accurate. Very early on in the series, producers and cast members went on the record stating how happy they were to be a part of something that was both entertaining and educating to the audience. They were--and still are--thrilled that so many viewers decided to get into the field of forensic science because of the show. Yes, they will take some creative liberties (you can't process DNA in 45 seconds!), but they do try to be as accurate as possible.

ETA: Speedy, that episode is "After the Show."

That's all well and good, and I admit that I've personally learned alot of things from CSI over the years. And yes, some--some--of the crimes are based on real stuff. But I have yet to read about criminals who tried to get away with something because they saw how to do it on CSI. People are going on and on like this is some kind of weekly morality play, and CSI is far from that.

I've heard of people using what they've gain by watching CSI forensically and using it to try to get away with a crime. If you look for it, you'll find examples of it.

 

[Robinjn]

If one has to look for examples, it can't be that prevalent. I did find a couple of entertaining lists on how to get away with a crime, but they said nothing about getting their info from CSI.

I would like to think that most people who watch the CSI franchise already know that vigilante justice is wrong without CBS having to tell them. And I'm pretty sure TPTB know that vigilante justice is wrong and aren't trying to preach to the choir (the viewers)--they're just trying to tell a story. So I don't really see the so-called hypocrisy. But that's just me.

 

[hiphugger17]

Even if a show is fictional and supposed to be entertainment things we see in it can very easily lead us to make certain decisions either subconsciously or consciously. I've read on discussion boards how people write about being able to make a difficult decision because a character inspired them, or how they decided to study something based on a show, etc. It's like the old saying "does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" It sounds absurd that a show that is supposed to entertain would have influence in a person's life but that's the reality. So it can either have good or bad influence, but influence it has.

 

[sharp52092]

Back to the spoilers, yep if we meet Sara's mom Lesley Ann Warren (on the right) is also my pick to play her as for Hodges mom Doris Roberts or Betty White would be awesome, Chloris Leachman would be great too plus I think she looks like Hodges or is it just me? :lol:

Any ideas on who should play Mrs. Robbins?

I think I would be all for a Criminal Minds crossover as long as it's not just DB crossing over, my idea for the crossover would them chasing Sqweegel

I wonder if the clues about Grissom begin in the premiere and will that take place in several episodes or just one

And I would love to see Mary Steenburgen (Ted's wife) play Mrs. Russell but I don't wanna see her for awhile, towards the end of the season, not the finale) or next season

 

[PrincessJ88]

I'd love a crossover with Criminal Minds..although it might be a little difficult with one character from CM whose last name is Morgan and we now have a Morgan on CSI.

I've always wanted to see how each team would react to the other.

 

[GregNickRyanFan]

Any ideas on who should play Mrs. Robbins?

For some reason, Katherine Helmond is coming to mind. I don't know why though lol.

I think I would be all for a Criminal Minds crossover as long as it's not just DB crossing over, my idea for the crossover would them chasing Sqweegel

I would love to see Greg interact with Garcia and Reid, Nick and Derek interacting, Morgan and JJ, Emily and Sara, Rossi and DB and Brass, Hotch and Cath. Did I miss anyone? :lol: But would they all fit on the plane? LOL! Oh oh... Ecklie and Strauss interacting! LOL!

 

[Dizzney]

I think I would be all for a Criminal Minds crossover as long as it's not just DB crossing over, my idea for the crossover would them chasing Sqweegel

I would love to see Greg interact with Garcia and Reid, Nick and Derek interacting, Morgan and JJ, Emily and Sara, Rossi and DB and Brass, Hotch and Cath. Did I miss anyone? :lol: But would they all fit on the plane? LOL! Oh oh... Ecklie and Strauss interacting! LOL!

I could totally see your pairings there between the two shows. :lol: well done. I agree I would like to see the crossover with Criminal Minds.