Season 12 Spoiler Lab Discussion

[byline]

Fish is a good actor, but the way they wrote Langston flat out sucked. He went from being a bumbling yet cute rookie to a know-it-all-solving-all-cases "experienced" CSI in less than a year. It was ridiculous and silly looking because in no profession would that ever happen.

Yup, that's exactly my problem with the way Ray was written. Add in the hackneyed Haskell story arc (after his first two episodes; those were brilliant), and a good idea -- Ray as originally written -- completely lost whatever potential it had.

I don't know if the powers that be resorted to some sort of test marketing to determine what they thought audiences wanted to see out of Ray, but I almost got the sense that they felt a "lead" character who wasn't in the leadership role would be perceived as weak, which audiences wouldn't accept. So they turned Ray into some sort of supersleuth, in a lame attempt to fast-track him into the leadership role. That's just not going to work for a show that's been on as long as "CSI" has, with characters to whom the fan base has built a strong loyalty. It's sort of amazing that they didn't know that; how could they not know? But there appears to be a real blind side when it comes to most of the audience.

I have to wonder if they went into panic mode when Petersen finally came through and said, "I'm not coming back." It's like they came up with a plan -- a good one -- to replace him in the short term, but they never really figured out how to sustain the series over the long term.

 

[hiphugger17]

...Dylan McDermott: If the show wants to keep the same template for the CSI team leader, it could do a lot worse than McDermott, who had years of brooding intensity on "The Practice" and proved pretty adept in the cop-show world on TNT's "Dark Blue."

He's got my vote. He was great in Dark Blue .

...Elizabeth Mitchell: Intelligence? Check. Ability to be flinty when called for? Check. Someone who deserves a lead role in a series? Check and check.

She has definitely got my vote to replace Cath. She's been great both in LOST and V. Plus I'm going to be missing V like crazy so to see her on CSI would be a great treat.

William Petersen returning would be ideal and amazing. I have very little hope of it happening (maybe if it were the final season but even if, I doubt it) but it would be absolute perfection.

 

[governess]

I WANT MORE GREG...LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS MORE GREG!! He's the only character that gets my blood pumping because he has/had so much charisma and quirkiness! If Eric SZmanda leaves CSI or continues to be in the background for S12 I will no longer watch the show.
Greg made the show watchable with his humor in the lab and now that he's a CSI all that humor is gone which is UNFORGIVABLE! The show needs his humor and has been a BORE since S7. We need Greg back!!!!!!!
Personally? I'd LOVE to see Eric Szmanda quit CSI and star in a comedy sitcom! Like a guy who has to deal with his parent's weed operation while they are away in jail for dealing weed!
Keep rockin' the free world, Eric! Show your face more! We love you :-D

 

[~fox~]

Mark Valley: The former "Human Target" star can either go quietly intense (see his "Fringe" role) or swaggering and cocky (see "Keen Eddie," still our favorite role of his), depending on how the show crafts the new character. Bonus: His character could have a running competition with Nick Stokes (George Eads) over who has the squarer jaw.

I just don't see Kristy's pimp/murderer coming back on :shifty:

 

[sharp52092]

Mark Valley: The former "Human Target" star can either go quietly intense (see his "Fringe" role) or swaggering and cocky (see "Keen Eddie," still our favorite role of his), depending on how the show crafts the new character. Bonus: His character could have a running competition with Nick Stokes (George Eads) over who has the squarer jaw.

I just don't see Kristy's pimp/murderer coming back on :shifty:

Oh I don't know, actors/actresses that play murderers or suspects before often come back for another ep

Take Jon Wellner, he played the dirty zookeeper in Unbearable and now plays lab tech Henry

 

[jafox]

I'm not crazy about any of the names I've seen so far. I think they need to continue adding diversity to the cast, African or Native American, or Hispanic. I'm pretty sure LV has a more diverse population than we see in the lab. And, I'd like to see someone younger, a certified and believable newbie. It would be interesting if they hired Liz back as well; but with Ecklie's daughter coming on board, that probably won't happen.

I just really hope that they don't bring someone in to upstage the original cast; I want to see someone that will add to the show without taking away its original flavor. Stick to low-keyed, respected character actors; no action/adventure actors, please. And I really, really hope that all the original cast returns.

As for commenting on LF leaving, I'll just say I'm relieved. And, not really surprised. Ray had a good exit arc; and now the show can move on and leave the Raskell mess behind.

 

[sharp52092]

I'm not crazy about any of the names I've seen so far. I think they need to continue adding diversity to the cast, African or Native American, or Hispanic. I'm pretty sure LV has a more diverse population than we see in the lab.

Yeah I do see them adding someone diverse

Jimmy Smits would fit that, and would be my like 2nd top pick so far, Nick becoming the lead is my first pick

And, I'd like to see someone younger, a certified and believable newbie. It would be interesting if they hired Liz back as well; but with Ecklie's daughter coming on board, that probably won't happen.

Oh yes definatly more believable newbie, not an instant CSI

No they probably won't rehire Liz, though I keep hoping for it :angel:

I wish they just listen to us, make Nick the lead, have Greg and Sara be his right hands, bring in Morgan, and bring Wendy back at least that's what I want, I don't need any new 'star', at most bring in a new full time lab rat

I just really hope that they don't bring someone in to upstage the original cast; I want to see someone that will add to the show without taking away its original flavor. Stick to low-keyed, respected character actors; no action/adventure actors, please. And I really, really hope that all the original cast returns.

Agreed and yeah unless CBS has completley lost their marbles, they'll give the rest of the cast what they what

 

[vegaslights]

Mark Valley: The former "Human Target" star can either go quietly intense (see his "Fringe" role) or swaggering and cocky (see "Keen Eddie," still our favorite role of his), depending on how the show crafts the new character. Bonus: His character could have a running competition with Nick Stokes (George Eads) over who has the squarer jaw.

I just don't see Kristy's pimp/murderer coming back on :shifty:

Oh I don't know, actors/actresses that play murderers or suspects before often come back for another ep

Take Jon Wellner, he played the dirty zookeeper in Unbearable and now plays lab tech Henry

This is true, but Henry is also just a recurring character, not someone who leads the show every week. Having previous villains return as the 'good guys' in a lead role often confuses the audience.

Elizabeth Mitchell also appeared during season three's "One Hit Wonder" as an old friend of Sara's who ended up killing her husband. As much as I'd love to see her back, I'd rather she not come on as a new character and stick with the SciFi genre for now.

 

[Ladybronco]

I'm not crazy over any of those names either, but to be fair, I don't really know any of them. I like Jimmy Smits, especially on NYPD Blue after he took over from Caruso, but not on CSI. I think if he came on TPTB would do like with LF and force us into accepting him as a lead, over George. That would make me very unhappy, no matter how much I like Jimmy.

I feel that after all this time George should be the male lead. If they bring in someone experienced, then do it like how CM brought in Rossi, like a previous poster mentioned. He slid into his role perfectly, brilliant and experienced, but not the team leader and not interested in trying to usurp Hodges leadership or be a know-it-all. I know he's first in the credits, but Thomas Gibson has always had the *and* credit at the end I believe.

Any form of newbie would be a lot of fun, with everyone else training them and giving them experience. I'm good with Brody, Wendy coming back or any person who doesn't rock the boat so to speak. I don't want to see Greg taking a backseat to anyone either, he's earned his CSI 3 level already, even though he's not caught up in experience to Nick yet. Definitely more Ecklie, if Brody is on the show.

Then, if and when Catherine leaves for good, Nick should be the supervisor. Bringing in a supervisor from anywhere else would be a slap in the face to Nick, who doesn't deserve that after all these years.

You hear this PTB???
New is good, but no big name, I don't need that to keep watching my favorites on this show.

 

[blackflag]

My opinion -

Bring in someone unknown (or relatively unknown). If they bring in someone experienced then the writers are going to feel compelled to write specifically for that person. Most of those I've seen listed, whether I like them or not, they're too well known and I don't want them starring on CSI. It will be much easier to integrate a new character into the team if the person playing him/her isn't an easily recognizable name.


Susan

 

[Desertwind]

Fish is a good actor, but the way they wrote Langston flat out sucked. He went from being a bumbling yet cute rookie to a know-it-all-solving-all-cases "experienced" CSI in less than a year. It was ridiculous and silly looking because in no profession would that ever happen.

Yup, that's exactly my problem with the way Ray was written. Add in the hackneyed Haskell story arc (after his first two episodes; those were brilliant), and a good idea -- Ray as originally written -- completely lost whatever potential it had.

I don't know if the powers that be resorted to some sort of test marketing to determine what they thought audiences wanted to see out of Ray, but I almost got the sense that they felt a "lead" character who wasn't in the leadership role would be perceived as weak, which audiences wouldn't accept. So they turned Ray into some sort of supersleuth, in a lame attempt to fast-track him into the leadership role. That's just not going to work for a show that's been on as long as "CSI" has, with characters to whom the fan base has built a strong loyalty. It's sort of amazing that they didn't know that; how could they not know? But there appears to be a real blind side when it comes to most of the audience.

I have to wonder if they went into panic mode when Petersen finally came through and said, "I'm not coming back." It's like they came up with a plan -- a good one -- to replace him in the short term, but they never really figured out how to sustain the series over the long term.

WOW, how fans perceive situations so differently. I thought when he entered in "19 Down" and continued he fit in & meshed and bonded exceptionally well. He brought in his background expertise, and was a quick study on what the team taught him. He even stayed after hours to learn everything. He was laid back and so interested in learning all about everything which was electryfing. He was intense on the process and wanted to know everything. How he bonded with all of the team immediately was so beguiling. I couldn't imagine any other newbie that was so eager and so excited by being with the CSI team, and how he was never bossy or pushy but listened to all ideas that were presented. He did have issues, which team member didn't? But looking at the total picture, he was perfect:bolian:

Just about a month ago he said this.. and then things did change drastically

"Fishburne tells EW that "he's not looking to go anywhere, I'm having a great time, he says, while acknowledging that is was a challenge replacing William Petersen's Grissom. I was cognizant of the fact that Grissom was a much loved character. I made it my business to sit down and watch most every episode of CSI from S/1, till I came on. It was about understanding the world & becoming as immersed in the show as possible and ended it by saying "I LOVE IT" so what the H happened?

 

[K-Bug]

WOW, how fans perceive situations so differently. I thought when he entered in "19 Down" and continued he fit in & meshed and bonded exceptionally well. He brought in his background expertise, and was a quick study on what the team taught him. He even stayed after hours to learn everything. He was laid back and so interested in learning all about everything which was electryfing. He was intense on the process and wanted to know everything. How he bonded with all of the team immediately was so beguiling. I couldn't imagine any other newbie that was so eager and so excited by being with the CSI team, and how he was never bossy or pushy but listened to all ideas that were presented. He did have issues, which team member didn't? But looking at the total picture, he was perfect:bolian:

There's a huge difference between working above and beyond the call of duty to learn and be your best and unrealistically flying up the ladder to the top. Example: I finished my first year of teaching this year. I attended more workshops and worked on more committees than anyone. Do I expect to be named teacher of the year next year? Absolutely not. Tenure/seniority is something that you earn after years of work. The Ray way was written was stupid. Again, not Fishburne's fault. But still stupid.

 

[byline]

There's a huge difference between working above and beyond the call of duty to learn and be your best and unrealistically flying up the ladder to the top. Example: I finished my first year of teaching this year. I attended more workshops and worked on more committees than anyone. Do I expect to be named teacher of the year next year? Absolutely not. Tenure/seniority is something that you earn after years of work. The Ray way was written was stupid. Again, not Fishburne's fault. But still stupid.

I agree. Maybe after Ray underwent several years of learning and slowly worked his way up the ladder, it would have been more acceptable to more of the fan base. It was disconcerting to see the far more experienced team members deferring to his opinion after only one year. As you say, that would not happen in a real-life work environment. Not that quickly, anyway.

 

[buildersx]

[spam]

 

[waiting4summer]

There's a huge difference between working above and beyond the call of duty to learn and be your best and unrealistically flying up the ladder to the top. Example: I finished my first year of teaching this year. I attended more workshops and worked on more committees than anyone. Do I expect to be named teacher of the year next year? Absolutely not. Tenure/seniority is something that you earn after years of work. The Ray way was written was stupid. Again, not Fishburne's fault. But still stupid.

I agree. Maybe after Ray underwent several years of learning and slowly worked his way up the ladder, it would have been more acceptable to more of the fan base. It was disconcerting to see the far more experienced team members deferring to his opinion after only one year. As you say, that would not happen in a real-life work environment. Not that quickly, anyway.

I totally agree. Even if Ray had a background in medicine, he was not trained in forensics. Even though I am only a handful of years away from retiring as a teacher, I changed grade levels this year and I have to admit to bowing to the other, younger teachers at my new grade level repeatedly. There is a learning curve in any new position. There is no seminar or workshop that can take the place of actually putting in the time on the job. Congrats on your new career, KBug!