Still Missing Grissom?

[EricaSJ]

Catherine has had her faults. In fact, she's had many, but the one thing she has absolutely never done is betraying her team. She had to do what she did in that episode. It wasn't her decision. It was an order thrown in her face. She also made it clear that her team wouldn't be deceived. Just because the team (particularly Nick) was pissed, doesn't mean she did it wrong. I guess I'll never figure out why some people ingore what she has done for the team over the years just because of a decision that was not hers to make. Then again, people see it from different angles.

I think Nick might have the potential to be a good leader, but IMO the time just hasn't come yet.

Also, it wasn't just Billy Petersen that made Grissom. TPTB did their part, too. If they could create him, I believe they could create another character who's just as unique. I think the question is whether the Grissom (and other old characters') fans are wiling to accept it. I like Ray and would like to see his character develop. If TPTB do it right, hopefully he'll become another impressive CSI character.

 

[Adzix]

Catherine has had her faults. In fact. she's had many, but the one thing she has absolutely never done is betraying her team. She had to do what she did in that episode. It wasn't her decision. It was an order thrown in her face. She also made it clear that her team wouldn't be deceived. Just because the team (particularly Nick) was pissed, doesn't mean she did it wrong. I guess I'll never figure out why some people ingore what she has done for the team over the years just because of a decision that was not hers to make. Then again, people see it from different angles.

i have to agree to that. i think Cath is tough and not afraid to make hard decisions. she pretty much had little choice in this case but she went on with it and she sticked to it. she knew she might piss some people off (those more sensitive ones: Sara and Nick in particular) but she wasn't afraid and didn't hide from the consequences. she was ready to face the team and listen to what they have to say. so what if it was all a bad decision? not every leader always makes good ones, but it's how they learn from their mistakes and how they take the responsibility that counts.

Also, it wasn't just Billy Petersen that made Grissom. TPTB did their part, too.

yeah, but nobody says he did. CSI definitely has a very collaborative environment.

 

[EricaSJ]

^ I meant to say that even though Billy/Grissom has left, TPTB most definitely still have the ability to create another great character. But you're right about the collaborative environment.

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

Catherine has had her faults. In fact, she's had many, but the one thing she has absolutely never done is betraying her team. She had to do what she did in that episode. It wasn't her decision. It was an order thrown in her face. She also made it clear that her team wouldn't be deceived. Just because the team (particularly Nick) was pissed, doesn't mean she did it wrong. I guess I'll never figure out why some people ingore what she has done for the team over the years just because of a decision that was not hers to make. Then again, people see it from different angles.

IMHO, she did betray them! She knew they wouldn't be fooled. I've seen her stand up for herself and the team many times and did things against the grain, so to speak. Grissom, her superior, has told her to do things and she would go against him.

Yes, it was an order. Grissom has received many orders too and wouldn't follow them if he didn't think it was right.

Yes, she faced them, yes she knew they would be pissed, but to me, she let the team down to the point that they couldn't trust her. And in their type of work and environment, trust is extremely important.

I guess what I'm saying is, no matter what the Undersheriff said, the Catherine I know would've went against him and still told the team.

I think Catherine makes a great leader, faults and all, but 'that' Catherine (Redrum) gave in way too easily. I understand it, but still gave in to easily.

Catherine is not the type to bow down to anyone (and I love her for that), but she did then and that's why I point it out. At that time, she didn't fight for her team like she has in the past. Lord knows, Catherine is the only who's been there for Nick and, well, everyone.

 

[Adzix]

I meant to say that even though Billy/Grissom has left, TPTB most definitely still have the ability to create another great character. But you're right about the collaborative environment.

oh ok. i second that, then.

 

[Kimbo08]

I was let down with the whole situation as well because I loved the fact that the one time Catherine was really in charge, she has to sabotage the team. I would have love it had she rebelled, but the fact of the matter is, she really had no choice in the matter IMO.

I think TPTB can create a great show, but (not to beat a dead horse) it's way past time. With or without WP, the show is great, but TPTB are in a middle of a serious time. Their lead has left, they are one of the longest running procedural dramas on right now. There are alot of factors going into it, but to put the potential failure of the show on the departure of one star just seems egotistical and short sided, IMO.

 

[myfuturecsi]

I think Catherine makes a great leader, faults and all, but 'that' Catherine (Redrum) gave in way too easily. I understand it, but still gave in to easily.

Yeah I agree and I guess what the writers were saying was there is still a lot of sexism in law enforcement because I doubt McKeen would have tried to pull such a stunt with Grissom.

Grissom would have been able to tell McKeen to take a hike because he had seniority and he knew they'd never fire him.

I meant to say that even though Billy/Grissom has left, TPTB most definitely still have the ability to create another great character

I agree with Erica, but I'm still getting the feeling the writers are simply not investing themselves into the show as they used to. I'm wondering if Billy's micromanaging of the show left them floundering after he left. That's the problem with micromangers, they can really rob a team of independant thought.

you must really not like him. i kind of think that maybe you're a little envious that George got less attention as an actor or as Nick than WP/Grissom. .

I'd respond to that, but that would be a waste of energy. And we're all trying to conserve energy, so try re-directing your barbs in a less toxic manner. Thank you.

 

[Kimbo08]

I think that TPTB have realized that they may be in the end days and are conserving all of their good ideas for the last season. Maybe?

 

[GregNickRyanFan]

Ack! I don't want it to end! I want it to go on for twenty seasons... or at least one season longer than ER. :lol:

 

[kaylyne]

I think the problem is that towards the middle of season 6 and on, the writers started writing themselves into a corner as they shifted the focus from the team to Grissom and the 'relationship'. Season 7 started with the recurring mini-crime scenes and became about Grissom and his fascination with the killer and the miniatures - even going so far as to make one himself. Then they were faced with the "oh crap" factor of Billy wanting to leave for a bit and do his play, then had to quickly redirect their focus to something else. When he came back, the focus returned to him and the relationship, then another "oh crap" moment when Jorja decides to leave. That left them painted into another corner, because they didn't seem to have a back-up plan for that. When they got out of that corner (with a very flimsy excuse for a plot), they turned their focus back to Grissom again in preparation for his swan song. So now they had no more corners to paint themselves into and they used up all of their available painting canvas. They needed to start over and wipe the canvas clean but using the same landscape - returning to focus on the rest of the characters and the cases (which was what made the franchise great to begin with) and have finally put it together with a nice portrait reminiscent of the 'good old days'.

 

[Adzix]

I'd respond to that, but that would be a waste of energy. And we're all trying to conserve energy, so try re-directing your barbs in a less toxic manner. Thank you.

sorry if i offended you in any way, i didn't mean to. just stated my opinion. i didn't think that saying 'i kind of think that maybe you're a little envious of WP getting more attention than George' is a barb in a toxic manner.

I think TPTB can create a great show, but (not to beat a dead horse) it's way past time. With or without WP, the show is great, but TPTB are in a middle of a serious time. Their lead has left, they are one of the longest running procedural dramas on right now.

i say yes and no. when it comes to shows like Lost, Heroes and such, where continuity is a key factor, 10 seasons is definitely way past their time. but shows like Law and Order or CSI have the potential to stay on air for more than that. the continuous plot doesn't get too crazy complicated so it's not harder to make up good shocking stories. but i emphasize the word 'potential'. doesn't necessarily mean there is 100% certainty CSI will still be there in 5 years. but they have a good chance. now it depends if TPTB take it.

 

[Kimbo08]

I would love for CSI to go one for 10 more years if possible. but I really don't want CSI to turn into L&O. No offense to the people who still watch it and like it, but L&O is a revolving door. They have a crime fighting duo that lasts around 3 or 4 years and then bring new ones on(with the exception of SVU). When ever I happen to catch an episode, I feel like I have heard the case before. And I would hate for the show to turn into that. You know, where it's the same old recycled, regurgitated storylines over and over and over again. I don't see a point to that?

 

[gilsgal]

But my concern is all this Missing Grissom talk is going to erode the ratings before we get a chance to get know Fishbourne.

You can't make fans keep quiet about what they like or dislike about a show...and it certainly isn't just those of us who chat on this board who will decide whether LF and the Langston character are accepted. There are millions of viewers out there, and they will decide whether this new version of CSI is worthwhile enough for them to continue watching. For many of those millions,including me, Grissom's character was the reason to watch the show and with him gone, they feel a huge part of CSI has lost it's soul.

:lol:As for missing Grissom, I do sometimes. I feel that they are trying to compensate for the loss of Grissom by shoving the replacement down our throats too much... and while I like the character, I don't think he should be getting anymore screentime than Grissom ever did. And no one has those interesting little tidbits/one-liners like Grissom. So yeah, I miss him.

I think if TPTB and the writers had eased Langston into the team, and spent more time on him learning how to be a CSI, instead of making him omniciscent within 3 epsiodes, and focusing more on the old team, then many of us would have coped better with CSI without Grissom.

I'm not really missing Grissom per se, I am missing the show that we had when he was still on. I feel that the quality has gone down, not because of WP, but because TPTB are trying to recreate a show that is already past it's prime. JMO.

Amen. It seems as soon as BP left, the writer's mojo went with him. I have to wonder if a. Billy Petersen was such a control freak he took their ability to write for themselves away from them. or b. they are deliberately trying to sabotage the show because they don't want to write for the show anymore. They truly believe the show cannot go on without BP and so they want to kill it themselves.

I don't think Billy micromanaged anybody, but there is something called a muse...and I think Grissom as a character, was a muse to many of the writers. With his propensity to talk to serial killers, be politically tone deaf, socially awkward, and seemingly unflappable,there were so many situations to put him in, to see how he'd respond.

The writers have to find a new muse, and a new voice for the show without changing it so much that it's unrecognizable. I think they're failing in that regard.

I miss Grissom in some ways, but in other ways I don't. It's hard to describe. :lol: I love the guy, I really do. I think he was a very interestingly quirky character. And yes, he had issues with social type things, but I still liked his interactions with the team for the most part. And I kind of miss that. But, at the same time I'm loving Cath in charge... I just wish it was shown more.

Nick also showed last week that he can be fair when he leads. However, Grissom was anything but fair.

Grissom was a good leader, at times, but he was in no way perfect. There isn't someone who leads a team that is.

Grissom's bad points: played favorites (Warrick, Sara, Greg), had a relationship with a subordinate (unethical - yes, he fell in-love, but it is STILL unethical), hypocritical, unfair to certain team members and not to others (guess that would fall under favoritism), too self-involved at times and lets not forget him not getting evaluations in on time so his staff got their raises. :lol:

I'll give him bad at paperwork, because who the heck likes to do paperwork? I'm a manager and I can tell you, I don't! :lol:

Grissom's good points: good teacher, great scientist, quirky, genuinely cared for his team (cared more for some), loyal, will defend his team no matter the consequences (very good points for that), won't bow down and kiss a**.

Ok, there are probably more good and bad points, Grissom is human like the rest of us. However, that doesn't make him a better boss or leader than anyone else.

Like GNRF, said I miss Grissom. I do. He was and is one of the most interesting, quirky characters ever on TV and will always be one of my favorites.

Thanks for saying that Grissom was human.
I find it fascinating that people always bring up that Grissom was not perfect...as if those of us who like and miss him EVER thought he was.

In TPTB's original pitch to Billy about the character, they wanted him to be always right, always perfect, and Billy said the only way he would play Grissom, was if he could be human and make mistakes. It was for the purely selfish reason, that fallible characters are more fun and interesting for Billy to play.

So yes, Grissom played favourites, he did things that weren't always right, but that happen in everyday life. I think that makes him a much more interesting character to watch than somebody who never makes a false step.

I think TPTB can create a great show, but (not to beat a dead horse) it's way past time. With or without WP, the show is great, but TPTB are in a middle of a serious time. Their lead has left, they are one of the longest running procedural dramas on right now. There are alot of factors going into it, but to put the potential failure of the show on the departure of one star just seems egotistical and short sided, IMO.

Well whether is seems egotistical and short-sighted or not, the fans are the ones who will decide the fate of this revised CSI based on how much they like it compared to the episodes with Grissom in it. In the end it will be what the majority of viewers feel about the new direction that CSI is taking.

I think a major problem is that the writers have forgotten everything they've drilled into our heads over the last 8 1/2 seasons...1) not letting a CSI level 1 be alone at a crime scene 2) A CSI level 1 doesn't gather evidence for a major big case and present it at court 3) CONFLICT OF INTEREST 4) Taking off without letting your Supervisor know what you're doing.....and the list goes on and on.

I would love for CSI to go one for 10 more years if possible. but I really don't want CSI to turn into L&O. No offense to the people who still watch it and like it, but L&O is a revolving door. They have a crime fighting duo that lasts around 3 or 4 years and then bring new ones on(with the exception of SVU). When ever I happen to catch an episode, I feel like I have heard the case before. And I would hate for the show to turn into that. You know, where it's the same old recycled, regurgitated storylines over and over and over again. I don't see a point to that?

I agree.
The writers of CSI were having trouble with recycled lines before Grissom left....so how long before they start recycling similar storylines. I'd love for CSI to continue for a long time, but the way it's going , I have my doubts.

I think I wouldn't miss Grissom so much if the writers and TPTB had handled the assimilation of Ray into the team differently...more gently... easing him into the team dynamics and being a CSI, etc.

 

[myfuturecsi]

The writers have to find a new muse, and a new voice for the show without changing it so much that it's unrecognizable. I think they're failing in that regard.

Agreed. I guess Grissom was their muse since the show was based on his character who was based on a real foresnics person.

And muses are hard to come by, not any character can be a muse. In my fanfic writing, Nick is my muse, but what one writer's muse is another writer's minor character.

And I don't mean to elevate my self with the writers of CSI, believe me, I'm nowhere near as good as they are. They have years of training behind. I just write as a hobby and a release.

But I do understand how it is when your muse is gone.

Damn it. They should have legazlied cloning so they could grow another Billy Petersen in a Lab somewhere.

Although it is too bad, Billy Petersen doesn't have a twin brother who could have filled in for him.

Or they could have holographic Grissom! That way Billy could just do his plays and then go home and perform CSI and he'd have the best of both worlds as Hannah Montanna would say.:lol:

Even though I don't miss Grissom, I do appreciate what BP brought to the show he really did a lot for CSI. He picked some of the actors (George Eads and Robert David Hall) for the role, brought writers on the set.

However, I kind of wish he hadn't had so much responsibility because he grew so tired of the strain of it as Robert Hall mentioned in his interview. That must have been very stressful for him and it's no wonder he left. I always believe in moderation because actors are not superhuman, even Billy Petersen.

I'm not saying he couldn't do it, I just don't think it was fair to put so much of the show's faith in his hands because he'd been saying he wanted to leave for a long time. They should have taken heed and delegated some of the creativity to the other actors particularly George who has so much enthusiasm, but just lack of experience.

 

[byline]

I was one of those who, when I found out that Petersen was leaving, was pretty resolute in my belief that once he was gone, I was outta there, too. But I decided to give the series a chance . . . and was pleasantly surprised. I really like what they've done with Fishburne's character, and by and large I like the energy and focus on crime-solving that has returned to the series. For me, the change has been a much-needed breath of fresh air, and I'm happy to say that I'm looking forward to my Thursday night "CSI" fix once more.

The one time I did find myself missing Petersen was when in the episode week before last, when Catherine and Ray were rechecking the old crime scene. Ray did his little jumping move, and then Catherine remembered that Grissom told her people always forget to look up. I felt a little pain at that moment, because I realized Grissom would've loved to have seen and heard that.

And it seems like a lot of people are "not bothering", since ratings have gone from 20+ million viewers, to 14+ million viewers. All the GSR fans of all the CSI forums could be from the U.S. (which is not true), and stop watching CSI together (which isn't happening either), and even get support from all the Grissom fans who swore they wouldn't watch CSI again, and we wouldn't make 0.1% of the audience loss. So something must be missing from the show to make more or less 6 million people in the U.S. alone become disengaged from it.

But from what I can see, that's true for all network television shows. All the ratings numbers are down, which tells me there's more at play here than just people becoming disaffected with a particular show. People seem to be drifting away from network television altogether. So I think this is another case of "correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation." Just because we've seen the end of GSR, and just because the total number of viewers is down, doesn't necessarily mean that that's the reason. As my dad (who taught university statistics) has always said, "People can use statistics to prove whatever they want."