Season 7 Spoiler Discussion - Welcome back to the Big Apple!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course it can be done, just look at Criminal Minds. They are going into their sixth season but they are still on top of their game and every single episode is beyond amazing! In my opinion, they really define what the term "writer" stands for and show how it is done right!
 
Not that NY hasn't had its share of continuity issues. But if what people are blowing out of proportion here is the whole issue with how long Danny's been a CSI -- the writers haven't made a mistake here, at least not a gigantic one.

In season 1 (On The Job), Mac said that he hired Danny five years before. So now, Danny's been working with Mac for 11 years. So if he was working with Paulson 10 years ago, I'll just assume that Danny was doing two jobs back then. :shifty: Whatever. It seems very minimal error (1 year) but then it's kind of annoying.
Click to expand...
Another year had already passed by the time "On the Job" came out. (it was the third-last episode of S1, remember?) And we know Danny was working with Mac during that year. Counting it, plus another four -- this would make 5, but it'd be about 10 years overall that he's been at the lab. It's not impossible that he was on patrol with Paulson, and then a few weeks later was hired by Mac.
 
Last edited:
Maya316 said:
In season 1 (On The Job), Mac said that he hired Danny five years before. So now, Danny's been working with Mac for 11 years. So if he was working with Paulson 10 years ago, I'll just assume that Danny was doing two jobs back then. :shifty: Whatever. It seems very minimal error (1 year) but then it's kind of annoying.
Click to expand...
Another year had already passed by the time "On the Job" came out. (it was the third-last episode of S1, remember?) And we know Danny was working with Mac during that year. Counting it, plus another four -- this would make 5, but it'd be about 10 years overall that he's been at the lab. It's not impossible that he was on patrol with Paulson, and then a few weeks later was hired by Mac.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right! 'On The Job' was in 2005 so Danny is working in the crime lab for 10 years now.

As for the CSI: NY writers, for me they are one of the best! They never failed to give us excellent episodes. I decided to stay and watch the show even though my favorites (Angell and Stella) are gone - because I believe NY has more to offer. I just hope that they would be more careful. Stella's past was actually good until it was revealed she was only 34 years old. :lol:
 
Maya316 said:
Not that NY hasn't had its share of continuity issues. But if what people are blowing out of proportion here is the whole issue with how long Danny's been a CSI -- the writers haven't made a mistake here, at least not a gigantic one.

In season 1 (On The Job), Mac said that he hired Danny five years before. So now, Danny's been working with Mac for 11 years. So if he was working with Paulson 10 years ago, I'll just assume that Danny was doing two jobs back then. :shifty: Whatever. It seems very minimal error (1 year) but then it's kind of annoying.
Click to expand...
Another year had already passed by the time "On the Job" came out. (it was the third-last episode of S1, remember?) And we know Danny was working with Mac during that year. Counting it, plus another four -- this would make 5, but it'd be about 10 years overall that he's been at the lab. It's not impossible that he was on patrol with Paulson, and then a few weeks later was hired by Mac.
Click to expand...

That only works if you say that each season is a year. The writers have played with timelines so much that each season doesn't equal a year - well, unless they want it to for the story of the week. :rolleyes: I'm sure keeping track of timelines is difficult, but that's why they're supposed to be professional writers. If they can't keep track and make their own characters believable why the hell should anyone take the show seriously?
 
^ I think it still holds up in general if you assume each season = a year. 10 months apparently showed up between GFD and 6.03, but they also apparently lost 4 months between "Hostage" and "Veritas", and about another 3 between "Pay Up" and "Epilogue" (and I can't remember where else they've been playing with the timelines).
 
Maya316 said:
^ I think it still holds up in general if you assume each season = a year. 10 months apparently showed up between GFD and 6.03, but they also apparently lost 4 months between "Hostage" and "Veritas", and about another 3 between "Pay Up" and "Epilogue" (and I can't remember where else they've been playing with the timelines).
Click to expand...

Anything can "hold up" if one chooses to abandon logic and overlook the blatant errors. The point is the viewers should expect and get better than abadoning logic and blatant errors in timelines. In the first two seasons of the DVDs the commentators more than once bragged about how smart their audience was. Now it seems they're catering to the lowest common denominator who doesn't give a crap about believability as long as they're entertained for an hour. Screw what came before or what comes after. It doesn't have to be a cohesive series that makes sense.
 
^ Basic adding and subtracting is hardly "abandoning logic", it's baby math.

It'd be one thing if the writers were trying to sell to us that Paulson and Danny worked on the Wendy's Massacre in the spring of 2000. But one of them recalling working together some ten years ago -- it's hardly a big issue, especially since to the best of our knowledge it has been ten years, give or take a few months. Nor is it an injury they're trying to sell recovery time for. This is perfectly believable.
 
Maya316 said:
^ Basic adding and subtracting is hardly "abandoning logic", it's baby math.

It'd be one thing if the writers were trying to sell to us that Paulson and Danny worked on the Wendy's Massacre in the spring of 2000. But one of them recalling working together some ten years ago -- it's hardly a big issue, especially since to the best of our knowledge it has been ten years, give or take a few months. Nor is it an injury they're trying to sell recovery time for. This is perfectly believable.
Click to expand...

I guess it all depends on whose timeline we're talking about. For Danny there was 10 months between certain episodes when for Mac, Haylen and everyone else there was a few weeks. So, yeah, if you want to do the math for Danny specifically, then I guess it works out. If you want to think logically about the series as a whole, then, not so much. That's my point. Each character has their own timeline that doesn't work with other characters' timelines and sometimes doesn't even work with their own timeline. If I was watching Torchwood or Doctor Who I wouldn't have a problem with wonky timelines, but in a crime drama I want my characters back stories to be believable within the entire fabric of the show.
 
^ Doing the math for anyone other than Danny only decreases the amount of time he's been working at the lab - him being on patrol ten years ago doesn't even become an issue.

I did say NY has its share of continuity problems (yes, definitely 6.03) - just didn't see why this new spoiler would be one.
 
Top41 said:
I think some of the comments about the writers are a little on the harsh side. The show has been running for six going on seven years now--it's probably hard to keep all of the details straight. Most shows, if they go on for long enough, have some small continuity errors here and there. As fans, we're probably more attuned to them in some ways anyway, and I admit, I didn't remember how long Danny had been a CSI. The age thing is just a little goofy all around. The characters seem to be about 10 years younger than the actors playing them in some cases, and that's just silly.

I also don't think the writers are purposefully being lazy or trying to churn out bad episodes. I agree that last season was pretty weak overall, but prior to that, there have been some truly excellent episodes of this show. I think they're facing the challenges every writing team faces when they've been on a show that's run for a lot of years--how do they keep it fresh after so many seasons? The introduction of a new character could help that, actually.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but my "Won't someone think of the poor writers?" button popped its clogs right around the time of the WGA strike, when they spent so much time gnashing their collective teeth and dogpiling each other for access to the fainting couch and begging anyone who would listen to appreciate how much they sacrifice and sweat for the characters and the shows on which they work. Only to turn out the embarrassing pile of shite that was S6 a few short seasons later. If they're really such noble, suffering artistes worthy of an assload of money, then they can goddamn well show more respect for their "art" and the imaginary world for which they are responsible. Minor gaffes are acceptable; retconning Stella's entire backstory for one shitty crossover episode in S3 and defing logic with her age in "Grounds for Deception" are not; neither is changing Danny from a cop from a family with suspected mob ties in S1 to a cop from a fine cop pedigree in "The Party's Over." Or telling us in "Rush to Judgment" that Flack has had a spotless record for eleven years, only to imply in "Cuckoo's Nest" that he's a "chronic screwup." That's sheer, inexcusable lack of give a damn, and if the writers are happy to accept the fannish circle jerk that comes with working on a network show, then they she be equally prepared to get called on the bullshit.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a pretty safe assumption that each season is supposed to equal a year.

La_Guera said:
Top41 said:
I think some of the comments about the writers are a little on the harsh side. The show has been running for six going on seven years now--it's probably hard to keep all of the details straight. Most shows, if they go on for long enough, have some small continuity errors here and there. As fans, we're probably more attuned to them in some ways anyway, and I admit, I didn't remember how long Danny had been a CSI. The age thing is just a little goofy all around. The characters seem to be about 10 years younger than the actors playing them in some cases, and that's just silly.

I also don't think the writers are purposefully being lazy or trying to churn out bad episodes. I agree that last season was pretty weak overall, but prior to that, there have been some truly excellent episodes of this show. I think they're facing the challenges every writing team faces when they've been on a show that's run for a lot of years--how do they keep it fresh after so many seasons? The introduction of a new character could help that, actually.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but my "Won't someone think of the poor writers?" button popped its clogs right around the time of the WGA strike, when they spent so much time gnashing their collective teeth and dogpiling each other for access to the fainting couch and begging anyone who would listen to appreciate how much they sacrifice and sweat for the characters and the shows on which they work. Only to turn out the embarrassing pile of shite that was S6 a few short seasons later. If they're really such noble, suffering artistes worthy of an assload of money, then they can goddamn well show more respect for their "art" and the imaginary world for which they are responsible. Minor gaffes are acceptable; retconning Stella's entire backstory for one shitty crossover episode in S3 and defing logic with her age in "Grounds for Deception" are not; neither is changing Danny from a cop from a family with suspected mob ties in S1 to a cop from a fine cop pedigree in "The Party's Over." Or telling us in "Rush to Judgment" that Flack has had a spotless record for eleven years, only to imply in "Cuckoo's Nest" that he's a "chronic screwup." That's sheer, inexcusable lack of give a damn, and if the writers are happy to accept the fannish circle jerk that comes with working on a network show, then they she be equally prepared to get called on the bullshit.
Click to expand...

These issues bother me much more than whether or not they're off on Danny's timeline by a year or not. Stella's backstory is all over the place, as is Danny's. I think Danny was supposed to be a much edgier character initially--in the first two years, we see him making some real missteps. He was so much more interesting then. That got sacrificed to mold an unnatural change on him--to take him from being the chronic screw up to the perfect husband and father in a few short seasons. Totally unrealistic. And "The Party's Over" thing with him and the blue flu just annoyed me to no end.

To be honest, the way Stella acted completely out of character in "All Access" so that she could land in a dangerous situation pissed me off more than any backstory retconning ever could.

Regarding my comment about the writers--I'm certainly not arguing that they don't get paid a lot of money (they do) or that they don't mess up sometimes. However, I think the actors end up getting a lion's share of the praise, while the writers end up with most or all of the criticism, and some of that isn't deserved. We aren't privy to what goes on behind the scenes, and the network and the studio both have a hand in the show, too. I guess my point is that the writers are responsible for a large part of what is good about the show, even if they've made mistakes, continuity errors, etc.
 
Top41 said:
I think Danny was supposed to be a much edgier character initially--in the first two years, we see him making some real missteps. He was so much more interesting then. That got sacrificed to mold an unnatural change on him--to take him from being the chronic screw up to the perfect husband and father in a few short seasons. Totally unrealistic.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel!!! I can't even tell you how much I enjoyed his flaws and missteps. This really defined him as a character and I loved each single scene with him where he showed all of his different sides. It is so unnatural for his character to act all "perfect" and as the responsible husband/father. I wish he'd still be the tough yet charming single guy who had bad temper issues and worked hard on himself to become a better person.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top