"Who and What" Discussion *SPOILERS

As the episode has not aired here, could someone pleaes confirm something for me. Is it true that Sara and Grissom's dog is named Hank? And if so, why the heck would they give the dog the same name as Sara's ex-boyfriend who was using her as his bit on the side?
 
Yes, they didn't exactly treat GSR well, did they. There are so many things that just don't work (like the Hank thing), shouldn't be (them having a dog in the first place), aren't needed (there are many scenes that just aren't related to the cases that break the flow of the episode/storyline), or generally aren't handled well (too many to mention).

Then again, CSI is littered with continuity errors and plot holes. This is just another one.
 
That's true, but lately I feel like those continuity problems have become a lot more evident. Not exclusively with GSR but mainly.

The crossover thing was just another example, placing a NYC FBI agent randomly in the ep was unecessary in developing the storyline, imo.
 
I'm yet to see the episode, but if I recall the Vegas CSIs dislike the FBI with a passion.

Another plot hole I know of is back a few seasons. Can't remember the episode title off the top of my head, but it was season 4 methinks, when Greg saw that lady covered in burns. I read it as Greg being uncomfortable because he'd been burned - on the commentary the writer said it was because he'd never seen anything like it before. The writers don't pay attention, I swear.

And on the subject of Greg's burns: they were 2nd to 3rd degree, and left no scarring at all if "4x4" is anything to go by (I blame the light).

Honestly, how many more continuity errors and plot holes can they create? They need to hire someone to make sure it doesn't happen, because we fans do notice these things.
 
Clarrisani said:
Yes, they didn't exactly treat GSR well, did they. There are so many things that just don't work (like the Hank thing), shouldn't be (them having a dog in the first place), aren't needed (there are many scenes that just aren't related to the cases that break the flow of the episode/storyline), or generally aren't handled well (too many to mention).

Then again, CSI is littered with continuity errors and plot holes. This is just another one.
Click to expand...

Agreed! That's actually what I was referring to on another thread when I said the relationship had been "sprung on us". I know things were there all along, but I would very much have liked to have seen the moment when Grissom finally went for it. Everything else would make so much more sense to me now.

I also found all the blond haired kidnapped boys hard to keep straight. I almost didn't watch the WAT part...didn't seem necessary really. The first part didn't make me much care about the resolution.

I've always liked Sara, but I'm a little tired of seeing her get all crazy over some cases. It's her job, for crying out loud. Once or twice would have been enough to establish that she's affected by certain cases, but it's gotten a little old. If it's having that effect, maybe it's time for her to....oh wait. Never mind. ;)
 
I feel like the CSI viewers got WAYYY cheated out of the WaT hour. Gahh, what the heck? I was so disappointed.

Especially because Jack or whatever was in our hour for a fair amount...
 
Alrighty, first. Anthony LaPaglia so does not have aussie accent in WaT. Perhaps it isn't cool NY accent, but it isn't aussie either :|

I think CSI part was very confusing. I don't know is it when they try to add lots of stuff in 42 mins or what. But I was glad they still had those little 'funny' CSI moments, like when they were at trainyard and Jack went thru the car where was motorbikes and Grissom just walked between the cars and were on the other side the same time and Jack looked him like "how you are here already" :lol: :lol:

Another was in WaT part when Sam went downstairs to the lab and complained about chemicals :lol:

And my poor Hodges! I knew that would happend :lol:

I guess for a WaT eppy it was bit lame because it was mostly Jack and we mainly saw rest of the cast together near phone.

As for screentime - we've seen it before. Miami/NY ones in Miami part there's been very little of NY (except in first one) and NY part very little of Miami (or should I say H)
But the thing is it is indeed WaT and not CSI - then those who only watch WaT would be pissed because now their show was just 'CSI'

Anyways, felt bit confused, rushed and yeah. I guess would have make more sense as CSINY crossover
 
Alrighty, first. Anthony LaPaglia so does not have aussie accent in WaT. Perhaps it isn't cool NY accent, but it isn't aussie either :|
Click to expand...

he is an aussie...i can pick up a slight accent,from some of the words he said :p
 
xfcanadian said:
Alrighty, first. Anthony LaPaglia so does not have aussie accent in WaT. Perhaps it isn't cool NY accent, but it isn't aussie either :|
Click to expand...

he is an aussie...i can pick up a slight accent,from some of the words he said :p
Click to expand...

Doh, I know he is aussie but doesn't have the accent in the show :rolleyes:
 
What does anyones accent have to do with a great acting part? We just saw "American Gangster" with another Aussie Russell Crowe, and you could hear at times a bit of his 'accent' but his acting was superb, as was Anthony's LaPaglia's, I find his voice sexy and appealing, and don't here any accent what-so-ever. I was thinking through out this flick how WP could have done this role no problem, the good cop..anyway, and I've chatted with many people who don't have any particular agenda on either show, who raved about how great this two hr. special was, and how riveting and professional both actors were, and how they fit so well together in this epic ;)and not one mentioned any 'accent'!
 
Here's a couple of letters about this fabulous ep. in this week's TV Guide, from happy fans, about how great this episode was! To me probably the best one so far his season! absoutely BRILLIANT ;)

DOUBLE YOUR PLEASURE
William Petersen and Anthony LaPaglia.. FANTASTIC! Lets have more of this!
name withheld..Woodhaven, Mi.

Jack and Gil went up the hill to fetch..ratings gold! Thank you CBS for finally putting my two favorite crime fighters together and their real heroes in this spectacular sweeps crossover. Now if we can only get a spin-off with these two. I'd really be in heaven!
name withheld..Montclair, N.J.
 
desertwind said:
What does anyones accent have to do with a great acting part? We just saw "American Gangster" with another Aussie Russell Crowe, and you could hear at times a bit of his 'accent' but his acting was superb, as was Anthony's LaPaglia's, I find his voice sexy and appealing, and don't here any accent what-so-ever. I was thinking through out this flick how WP could have done this role no problem, the good cop..anyway, and I've chatted with many people who don't have any particular agenda on either show, who raved about how great this two hr. special was, and how riveting and professional both actors were, and how they fit so well together in this epic ;)and not one mentioned any 'accent'!
Click to expand...

why the hell do people have an issue with me finding his accent annoying! holy crap, everyone hears it differently...

I didn't like jack, and I found him angry and annoying, what does that have anything to do with other people? It doesn't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top