Season 12 Spoiler Lab Discussion

[PerfectAnomaly]

The writers give the characters dialogue, but it still reflects on the character. The main reason people disliked Ray so much is because of the way he was written. Yes, that was TPTB's fault and not LF's, but it still translates into a lot of people thought Ray was not a good character. I don't get implying that the writing is something seperate from the character as if the character would be a good one if not for the writing. The writing IS the character so if the writing doesn't go over on a regular basis the character will fall flat despite how good the acting is.

The gist I get as to the main reason people dislike Ray so much was not only the way he was written, but that so much was written for him, taking time away from the other characters.

Writing can only go so far. Don't the actors and their individual talents go a long way to make the character what it is? (See: William Peterson as Grissom.)

I disagree with "the writing IS the character". Alot of people think that Ray was not a good character. However, there were--and still are--people who think Sara is not a good character. People either love her or hate her; there's not a whole lot in between. Was that because of the writing? Or because of the way Jorja Fox portrayed her? When I read negative comments about Sara/Jorja, the issue isn't about how Sara is written--it's about Jorja's acting.

I would argue that it's not Sara that is the problem then. If people don't like Jorja's acting then yeah, the character won't be enjoyable, but I don't think you can call a character bad or good based solely on acting. Yes, acting is part of making the character who they are, but if the writing consistently sucks it doesn't matter how great the actor is, people are going to be turned off by the character.

A good example of this is Danny on NY. I think Carmine Giovinazzo is a great actor and he always knocks it out of the park no matter what the story line is. In the first three seasons Danny was hands down my favorite character. But since he has been tied to Lindsay and reduced to nothing more than Lindsay's husband and Lucy's father I could give two hoots about Danny as a character no matter how great Carmine plays the part. Carmine can only play what they give him to play. If what they give him sucks then the character is not going to be a good one.

My main point with Desertwind was that you can't seperate the writing out and say, "It's not the character's fault." Without the writing there would be no character. It all, including the writing, reflects on who the character is and if people like the character or not.

 

[Desertwind]

From what we know about the process between writers and actors on CSI is that there is a collaborative back and forth between the two. So if a character is not liked wouldn't it be both the writer's and the actor's fault per se?

Isn't there also the saying that an actor is only as good as the words he/she are given to say...but also a writer is only as good as the actor's ability to convey those words in the proper way?

Agreed, it takes a super superior actor/actress to convey the dialogue that they are given and make it convincing. My take on all acting is how believable and authentic it is. I feel that all the cast on CSI are that, and then some. Everyone has a dfferent take on who they think is fantastic and inspirational, and gets to them in a remarkable way, and gets the point of what their doing as the writers have given them. The depth of the acting is the key, and who ever thinks it's great, and how they deliver it is their opinion, and whoever doesn't that's their opinion. Respect is also important factor on a forum/board. Everyone has their own take on everything and everyone who participates on the show:bolian:

 

[Robinjn]

Writing is the foundation from which the character is built; writing is where the character begins, but it evolves from there. There are read-throughs, walk-throughs, last minute rewrites, ad libs and improvisation. It is indeed collaboration and most definitely a process.

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

Writing is the foundation from which the character is built; writing is where the character begins, but it evolves from there. There are read-throughs, walk-throughs, last minute rewrites, ad libs and improvisation. It is indeed collaboration and most definitely a process.

That doesn't change the fact that if the words the character says and the situations they are put in - which is the writing; collaborative process or not - are consistently bad the character won't be seen as a "good" character to many people. Good acting alone does not make a good character but bad writing can destroy a character regardless of how well the character is acted.

 

[Robinjn]

Writing is the foundation from which the character is built; writing is where the character begins, but it evolves from there. There are read-throughs, walk-throughs, last minute rewrites, ad libs and improvisation. It is indeed collaboration and most definitely a process.

That doesn't change the fact that if the words the character says and the situations they are put in - which is the writing; collaborative process or not - are consistently bad the character won't be seen as a "good" character to many people. Good acting alone does not make a good character but bad writing can destroy a character regardless of how well the character is acted.

Nothing changes the fact that everyone has their personal preferences, i.e. who they like and who they dislike. People don't like Ray so that equates to his character being badly written? People don't like Sara but that's only attributable to people not liking her acting and not bad writing? I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

Writing is the foundation from which the character is built; writing is where the character begins, but it evolves from there. There are read-throughs, walk-throughs, last minute rewrites, ad libs and improvisation. It is indeed collaboration and most definitely a process.

That doesn't change the fact that if the words the character says and the situations they are put in - which is the writing; collaborative process or not - are consistently bad the character won't be seen as a "good" character to many people. Good acting alone does not make a good character but bad writing can destroy a character regardless of how well the character is acted.

Nothing changes the fact that everyone has their personal preferences, i.e. who they like and who they dislike. People don't like Ray so that equates to his character being badly written? People don't like Sara but that's only attributable to people not liking her acting and not bad writing? I don't understand your reasoning.

I never said that people ONLY dislike Sara because of bad acting. You're the one who brought up that some people don't like Jorja's acting. I'm saying IMO it doesn't make sense to say a character is a bad character because someone doesn't like the acting. A lot of people on this board have said they disliked Ray because of the way he was written and not because LF did a bad job acting. What I'm saying is that IMO you can't say things like "It's not the character's fault. It's the writer's fault." When talking about why Ray might be seen as a bad character. Without the writing there is no character. Yes, I get that the writing is a colaborative effort and that the actor brings the character to life. But how many people are going to continue to watch a show that has good actors and absolute dreck for writing? IMO good acting alone can't save a character and bad acting alone can't completely destroy a character.

Why am I continually being accused of denying people an opinion? Where have I said directly to anyone that they can't have an opinion? Where have I said that what I say is anything other than my opinion? Debating a point and disagreeing with someone is not remotely the same as denying others an opinion or being disrespectful.

 

[Kasey47]

I don't think anyone was accusing anyone else. I think we're all saying the same thing but in different ways. There are some people that dislike a character because they don't like the acting or the things the character said/done or their relationship to other characters. And some people dislike a character based on the way the character is written. There is no wrong and there is no right.

I think the acting in the last few episodes of the season was very intense and quite good. I think the writing has been fine and I think they got back on track for the most part. That being said while I did like the dynamics between Nate and Ray, I did think there was overkill. After 11 years we were not ready for such a personal storyline especially when it involved someone who had not been there for very long. But to make broad generalizations about acting or writing is what gets me. And that has been some (and I'm not accusing) people's reaction to characters and to the writing.

 

[DJRideout]

Okay...just a friendly little reminder.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, likes and dislikes... we should all respect that. And in this situation, no one is actually accusing anyone, of anything, over this particular topic of conversation. There are valid points being made at both ends of the spectrum here. But perhaps this is a subject that we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that!

Remember, this is the season 12 spoiler thread...lets talk actual spoilers. At least the little that we have at this time.

 

[myfuturecsi]

Okay...just a friendly little reminder.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, likes and dislikes... we should all respect that. And in this situation, no one is actually accusing anyone, of anything, over this particular topic of conversation. There are valid points being made at both ends of the spectrum here. But perhaps this is a subject that we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that!

Remember, this is the season 12 spoiler thread...lets talk actual spoilers. At least the little that we have at this time.

In other words, peace y'all!:lol:

 

[Elayne]

Okay, in the spirit of getting the topic back on track, who else thinks the little info about the first episode is a total foiler? I'm a little suspicious because we had previously been told by one of TPTB that the 1st ep of season 12 would start right where season 11 ended and then jump forward to current time part-way thru. Why would IA be investigating months later if Ray was gone?

 

[PraetorCorvinus]

Okay, in the spirit of getting the topic back on track, who else thinks the little info about the first episode is a total foiler? I'm a little suspicious because we had previously been told by one of TPTB that the 1st ep of season 12 would start right where season 11 ended and then jump forward to current time part-way thru. Why would IA be investigating months later if Ray was gone?

Well, in the 'real world' an IA investigation might take months. CSI time though it would only take about a week. :lol:

And I think Vegaslights or someone did mention that the episode is a foiler.

 

[vegaslights]

Breaking: Ted Danson takes over 'CSI'

http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/07/08/csi-ted-danson/

The crime scene behind the yellow tape just got a lot more interesting on CSI.
CBS is set to announce that Ted Danson will take over for Laurence Fishburne as the drama’s leading man for the show’s 12th season. Danson will play the CSI supervisor for the grave shift after heading the crime lab in Portland. He comes to the team as they are still grappling with the professional and personal fallout from last season’s take-down of serial killer, Nate Haskell.

“You can create a new character on the page, but until the perfect actor comes along and breathes life into it, it’s just words,” said executive producer Carol Mendelsohn. “We’re very excited Ted Danson came along.”
Danson — the veteran Emmy-winning TV actor who was most recently seen toking doobies with Zach Galfianakis on HBO’s Bored to Death -- replaces Fishburne, who left the series in May after CBS declined to renew his contract. Fishburne came to the drama more than two years ago in an attempt to fill the void left by William Petersen (Gil Grissom). Despite his high-profile status as a film actor, Fishburne’s presence as Dr. Raymond Langston wasn’t enough to keep CSI’s ratings strong in the wake of Peterson’s departure. The former Top 5 show finished the season with a 3.3 rating among adults 18-49, ranked No. 30.

The casting of Danson caps off an exhaustive search by CBS to find another star worthy enough to help return some luster to the aging CSI franchise. EW learned that offers went out to actors like Tony Shaloub, Robin Williams and John Lithgow before the studio landed on Danson, who’s been enjoying a career resurgence thanks to a critically-acclaimed run on Damages. He received three Emmy nominations for playing Arthur Frobisher. Danson will remain a series regular on Bored.

“From the moment we all started talking about the role, it was clear he couldn’t be more perfect,” said executive producer Don McGill. “Intelligence, wit, warmth, depth of character and emotion, he brings it all. And now he’ll have to bring latex gloves, too.”

Presumably for investigating crimes.

 

[Smokey]

I'm all for it, but....

Danson will play the CSI supervisor for the grave shift after heading the crime lab in Portland.

...that really sucks. I mean, forget the fact that I think they should have given it to Nick....does this mean they are also taking the supervisor role away from Catherine???

Otherwise, it's definitely good that they learned a lesson and are bringing him in as an experienced CSI and not a newbie.

 

[myfuturecsi]

I'm all for it, but....

Danson will play the CSI supervisor for the grave shift after heading the crime lab in Portland.

...that really sucks. I mean, forget the fact that I think they should have given it to Nick....does this mean they are also taking the supervisor role away from Catherine???

Otherwise, it's definitely good that they learned a lesson and are bringing him in as an experienced CSI and not a newbie.

Nick should be given the role for crying out loud. This is such a slight to George and his character.:scream:

 

[sharp52092]

The link ain't working

Second, they sure seemed to get a new guy awful fast and he's gonna be the supervisor?! :scream: Is it cause of what happened in the season finale?! So Catherine gets demoted or does he become supervisor after she leaves?

And is EW sure about this I mean, they're the people that said Fish was staying and look what happened!!

I don't think I know Ted so I'll wait and see for I decide how I feel about him

ETA: Here's his imdb