Why Is Hawkes Ignored?

cSiNyFrEaK30 said:

lol they are having enough problems right now, i think =] plus, if we lynched them who would write the Hawkes episodes we need? :D

Form an orderly queue now ladies, no pushing at the back...that answer your question cSiNyFrEaK30? :lol:
Mind you, we may very well end up with CSI NYC XXX if we are allowed to write the scripts and quite frankly I have enough trouble with all the letters in CSI NYC without adding more. So I'll heed your good words my friend and lay of the writers... for now :devil:
 
I'm kind of scared to be honest that the writers wont do him justice if/when they write a Hawkes centered episode.
 
I'd certainly like to see more of Hawkes. It's true that even the episodes that are about him, end up being more focused on other characters. That's a great point about Danny stealing his thunder in AHTYMA. I understand that lots of people wanted to see Danny shirtless, but they could've saved that for another scene when listening to the dialogue was optional.

I love episodes where Mac and Hawkes work the same case, there are usually some fun moments between them. I loved the "eating is frowned upon" scene and how Hawkes got a clue from looking at J-Lo's butt, both in Grand Murder At Central Station, and the Robospanker conversation in Stealing Home. He's always enthusiastic about the science behind each case, to the point where even those who know nothing about science, or have no interest in knowing, would listen intently.
 
hairy0haggis said:
Maybe we could look to ourselves on this one. Top41 started this thread yesterday and it has not had THAT many replies or even been viewed that often, even though it's a fascinating and often asked question. Now, and stay with me here... if it was Flack or Danny's name in the title of the thread the viewing would be through the roof by now. *DUCKS AT ROTTEN VEG THROWN* Don't get me wrong, I am one of the most guilty for only viewing the threads that contain my favourite characters :eek:. But if the writers do indeed checks these threads out for opinions and ideas, well... you can kind of see why Sheldon's being shunned can't you?

No, actually I think you're dead on and that's exactly what I was thinking as I started this thread! Whenever I see an opportunity for a specific discussion involving one of the characters, I try to start a thread, and I think it's safe to say that threads involving Danny or Flack always seem to get the most response. They really are the most popular characters on the show, and I'll be the first to admit that I love it when the writers spotlight them. So there's definitely validity in your point--I think the writers tend to write towards the characters they can do the most with and that will get the best response--and that really is Danny. He's the most emotional, so what another character would internalize, he wears on his sleeve. For a writer, that's the kind of character you get a lot out of writing for.

And now Hawkes really is going to kill Danny for once again stealing his thunder. :lol: But Hawkes is a quieter character, and it's probably harder to pull storylines for him. I thoughts "Mrs. Azrael" was so great because it drew on his background and created something of a personal dilemma for him. Had he made the right choice career-wise?

I don't think the writers would mishandle a Hawkes story. I think they've done a good job with him so far--it's just that more could be done. I'd like to know a little more about what makes him tick, beyond the fact that he loves science and is a really smart guy and is thirsty for knowledge. What's his family background? We know that about almost all of the other characters, but not Hawkes. There are tons of opportunities for insight into him.
 
Top41 said:
hairy0haggis said:
Maybe we could look to ourselves on this one. Top41 started this thread yesterday and it has not had THAT many replies or even been viewed that often, even though it's a fascinating and often asked question. Now, and stay with me here... if it was Flack or Danny's name in the title of the thread the viewing would be through the roof by now. *DUCKS AT ROTTEN VEG THROWN* Don't get me wrong, I am one of the most guilty for only viewing the threads that contain my favourite characters :eek:. But if the writers do indeed checks these threads out for opinions and ideas, well... you can kind of see why Sheldon's being shunned can't you?

No, actually I think you're dead on and that's exactly what I was thinking as I started this thread! Whenever I see an opportunity for a specific discussion involving one of the characters, I try to start a thread, and I think it's safe to say that threads involving Danny or Flack always seem to get the most response. They really are the most popular characters on the show, and I'll be the first to admit that I love it when the writers spotlight them. So there's definitely validity in your point--I think the writers tend to write towards the characters they can do the most with and that will get the best response--and that really is Danny. He's the most emotional, so what another character would internalize, he wears on his sleeve. For a writer, that's the kind of character you get a lot out of writing for.

Agreed. I'm another one who's guilty of reading the Danny/Carmine and Flack/Eddie threads and forgetting about Hawkes/Hill threads.

And now Hawkes really is going to kill Danny for once again stealing his thunder. :lol:

They need another episode like "The Deep," except Hawkes has to save Danny. We could see Hawkes struggle with the decision, "Do I save the little thunder stealing brat or not?" :lol: :p That would also set up some good Hawkes/Flack conflict. Flack would pull up in his squad car, stalk over to Hawkes and say, "What do you mean you had to 'think about it'?! You always save the Kpoo, no matter what the cost! ALWAYS!DAMN!IT!" :mad: :lol:

Yes, I've officially lost my mind; but hey, I'm thinking of ways to get Hawkes more screen time. So, yay me! :p

But Hawkes is a quieter character, and it's probably harder to pull storylines for him. I thoughts "Mrs. Azrael" was so great because it drew on his background and created something of a personal dilemma for him. Had he made the right choice career-wise?

I think him being a quieter character makes him a good choice for juicy story lines. There's just so much potential for actions and reactions that the viewers might not expect that would really make the character more interesting than he already is.

I don't think the writers would mishandle a Hawkes story. I think they've done a good job with him so far--it's just that more could be done. I'd like to know a little more about what makes him tick, beyond the fact that he loves science and is a really smart guy and is thirsty for knowledge. What's his family background? We know that about almost all of the other characters, but not Hawkes. There are tons of opportunities for insight into him.

My sentiments exactly.
 
PerfectAnomaly said:
I think him being a quieter character makes him a good choice for juicy story lines. There's just so much potential for actions and reactions that the viewers might not expect that would really make the character more interesting than he already is.

That's absolutely true. His performances are very subtle and quiet, which is why when we do get to see great performances like Azrael and The Deep that they resonate with us long after the episodes air. I can't fathom why Hawkes is ignored; it might be in an attempt to draw in the younger audience demographic with the flimsier and less compelling storylines to which we have been subjected. But it's definitely a huge drawback to the show and the ensemble performances.
 
Springmoon said:
That's absolutely true. His performances are very subtle and quiet, which is why when we do get to see great performances like Azrael and The Deep that they resonate with us long after the episodes air. I can't fathom why Hawkes is ignored; it might be in an attempt to draw in the younger audience demographic with the flimsier and less compelling storylines to which we have been subjected. But it's definitely a huge drawback to the show and the ensemble performances.

This sums it up to me. I wouldn't buy Hawkes in any of the fluff storylines that the writers dish out to the rest of the cast. There's a sophistication about Hill Harper's acting that I find very endearing and I get the impression that the writers don't know how to expose it. If I were to toss out an idea, it would be due to the writers going for what's going to get those instant ratings. Their job is to keep the viewers interested after all. Danny undressing supersedes any heartfelt speech about why a talented doctor leaves the ER for the morgue.

But, as you said, it's a drawback of the ensemble cast. Someone always gets overlooked. It would be wonderful if he had an ongoing saga a la Aiden vs. DJ Pratt, but its been done and I don't give them that much credit.

I chalk this up to another failure that the writers of the show have committed and hope that the show goes on for another few years to get it right. You'd think that a guy who has been in every episode of a series would be getting more attention. That's a shame.

hairy0haggis said:
Lindsey is the only 'Southerner'

No, no, no, no, no she is not! :mad: As a Southerner, I'm appalled and dismayed. :D Montana is in the Mid-West, remember? :lol:
 
Ticamo77 said:
hairy0haggis said:
Lindsey is the only 'Southerner'

No, no, no, no, no she is not! :mad: As a Southerner, I'm appalled and dismayed. :D Montana is in the Mid-West, remember? :lol:

I'm from Minnesota, and the mid-west doesn't want Lindsay either. I'd call Montana more western than mid-western. But maybe that's just me. :confused: :lol:
 
I really don't think the show "needed" another main female character. It would have been fine with just Stella, who i believe was strong enough to pull her weight as the female part of the show.

There is what the show needed and then there is politics. They HAD to add another female. There is no way CBS could get away with having a show with only one female in the staring and supporting cast. Feminist watch dog groups would be all over them. There has to be a certain females to males ratio.


And yeah, other characters have had storylines after Lindsay's arrival, but all of them had decent enough introductions in season one to warrant continuing their stories throughout.

ok, i am trying to be as un-biased on this as i can. Here is my position on Lindsay: She is my least fave out of the CSI's, but i don't hate her. I don't care if she is there, i don't care if she isn't. So I am impartial really.

You could also argue that since she was a new character, that they had to have some kind of storyline going for her for character development. I don't buy that its all because of the addition of Lindsay.

Also, she was absent for a good chunk of season 3. If her character is the only reason for Hawkes being ignored, why didn't they use that time for his character? Did they? Nope. I would say the addition of Lindsay probably only affected Hawke in early season 2...and that is about it.


It's a bit too easy to do that. CSI does not strike me as a show that would allow that in anyway, shape or form.

I really dont think it has anything to do with him being black, and I dont think it makes tptb think that he'd be less popular at all to the fans.

Well, i knew my comments on this would get misunderstood. But i didn't explain it very well...

I didn't mean direct racism,that people don't like him or tptb give him less screen time because he is black. I meant indirect racism. Which happens all the time, but most of it is subconscious.

There is a theory in psychology that humans are naturally attracted to others who are similar to themselves. This makes sense, since we do tend to clump together based on similarities. However, this biological drive also separates us racially. Yes, i know that people do mingle and have interracial babies and all that jazz, but I am referring to a primary attraction. We don't all segregate based only on race, but we do stick to familiarity. And i am talking mostly about physical attraction. So if you grew up with only white people, chances are you won't be attracted to others from a different race. Not because you hate black people, its just a natural attraction. There is another theory that humans are attracted to others who look like ourselves, because deep down, we are all narcissists. And this would also explain why we tend to stick to our own race, because we seek people who look like ourselves. I have been to many schools that are multicultural (since i am in canada, the most multicultural country in the world), and let me tell you, no matter how small the building was, every group segregated themselves. It always happened, but there wasn't much racism going on, it was just people sticking to similar people.

ANYWAY, what i am trying to prove, and had to explain in an overly large paragraph since i am not good at communicating, is why being black hurts Hawkes as a character.

The hot white guy is ALWAYS the most popular character on north american tv. Since we are a mostly white nation, fans gravitate towards these characters the most.

Its that initial attraction that occurs, which goes on in your brain without your knowledge. And because of this, Hawkes is perceived to be less popular and because of that, he gets less screen time. The screen time and storylines are based on popularity of the characters. That is why flack gets a lot more than season 1, because he is a very popular character.

So to rephrase, i am not saying fans don't like hawkes because he is black, just that they naturally gravitate towards the other guys, mac, flack and danny more. As a result of this, Hawkes doesn't have as much screen time, and because of that people forget about him. This message board is living proof of this occurring.

Ok, so hopefully my novel makes sense.


but with CSI: NY's lack of diversity, it really stands out when the only non-white member of the regular cast continually gets shafted.

And that just looks terribly bad on tptb's part.

He looks half-white???

er...yeah, sorry. I study human genetics and biology (almost done my degree! In fact, i am procrastinating on an assignment as i type this)...a lot of genetics, for the past 4 years. So i tend to pick out human traits and characteristics of people, i like to make observations of them. His facial features look somewhat Caucasian, his nose, eyes and skull shape. I could be wrong, just observing it. I don't really care, just find that sort of thing very interesting.

I have to disagree about Warrick--I think Warrick has had some great storylines on CSI right from the beginning. His gambling addiction was something that came up right away, and since then he's dealt with stuff happening in his old neighborhood, had a flirtation with Catherine, got married, got divorced, developed a pain pill dependency and even was a suspect in a murder investigation.

He had good storylines in the first 2 seasons...then he got put to the side. The marriage storyline was so non-existent, i wouldn't even classify that as a storyline. On the vegas board for the last couple of seasons a lot of complaints about the lack of Warrick's screen time have been posted. And again, he is easily the least talked about CSI. Yeah, he has had more than Hawkes for sure, but he is still the most ignored CSI out of the vegas bunch. He also had less screen time in the last couple of seasons.
 
xfcanadian said:
I have to disagree about Warrick--I think Warrick has had some great storylines on CSI right from the beginning. His gambling addiction was something that came up right away, and since then he's dealt with stuff happening in his old neighborhood, had a flirtation with Catherine, got married, got divorced, developed a pain pill dependency and even was a suspect in a murder investigation.

He had good storylines in the first 2 seasons...then he got put to the side. The marriage storyline was so non-existent, i wouldn't even classify that as a storyline. On the vegas board for the last couple of seasons a lot of complaints about the lack of Warrick's screen time have been posted. And again, he is easily the least talked about CSI. Yeah, he has had more than Hawkes for sure, but he is still the most ignored CSI out of the vegas bunch. He also had less screen time in the last couple of seasons.

Didn't Gary D. spend a lot of time off set the last couple of seasons working on other projects? That, and the huge focus on GSR are probably major factors in the decreased Warrick time. I've read just as many (if not more) complaints about the lack of Greg screen time as well.

As for Hawkes, certainly I've read the complaints here and wondered, but I never thought about it enough to come up with a theory. But that's okay, because I think some of the theories here are pretty good. In particular, the idea that they made this interesting character and now they don't know quite what to do with him makes sense to me. The last couple of seasons have seemed to be all about angst, bordering on the soapish - What is Lindsay's deep dark secret? Does Stella have AIDS? Who is stalking Mac? Will Danny ever be the same again after the tragedy of Rueben's death? Somehow the calm, collected nature of Hawkes' character seems ill fitted for such storylines. (True Mac is "collected" but it was kind of fun to watch him unravel during the 333 stuff). It took something like being framed for murder to really rattle Hawkes and how often can they do stuff like that to him? Oh sure, they can occasionally have him nearly drown, but otherwise, it seems all they can do is have him be a foil for some of Sid's err, interesting comments (which he does very well - I love his reactions). So, yeah, I lean towards the "they don't know what to do with his character" theory.
 
I love Hawkes, but I rarely post in the thread about him--I just can't think of much to say. It's the same with Sid--I love him, but I just can't think of things to say.

And I think it sucks that I say the very same thing about a main character who has been on the show for 3 1/2 seasons and a recurring character who has been there 2 1/2. He's given main character billing but written as though he's recurring.

I think Lindsay's introduction did cause problems for Hawkes in season 2, definitely--you simply can't get his time as a rookie back. It was a wasted opportunity. But more than two years later, I don't think that should be a viable excuse anymore. (Although, to be fair, if they needed more estrogen, why not introduce a female coroner and a female lab tech in season 2--wasn't Calleigh the only female main character for a long time on Miami?)

I think a lot of the time we lament the lack of screentime because it doesn't give the writers a chance to develop characters--that's not really true though, IMO. Whether a character gets 3 minutes or 30 minutes in an episode, it's not the amount of time that matters, it's what they do with it. It seems like Hawkes is usually processing evidence or otherwise just playing CSI#2--he's there, he just doesn't stand out. We get Sid making crazy comments and we remember that--even if he doesn't have as much actual 'screentime' as Hawkes in that specific episode.

I think the problem isn't so much that he doesn't get enough time because there are so many people--I think they just aren't utilizing his time as well as they could. Personally, I think giving him some meatier storylines would not only be welcome, but it could help to balance out the ridiculousness of some of the other storylines. So often we point out that a single line could bring in continuity or that a single line could erase some confusion--a few lines here and there could be enough to make an ongoing storyline for Hawkes. Lord knows Hill could handle it and do it well.

Moments that stand out for us on Talk, I've noticed, tend to be ones that are really exciting or dramatic or fun, etc--Hawkes just doesn't get enough of that. Putting him in scenes with Sid never fails to amuse, but otherwise I think we just tend to like and appreciate him but not necessarily know what to say beyond the basics. Giving him a stand-out storyline could be more difficult, I suppose, but damnit, he deserves it!

I also think there's a bit of a vicious cycle going on with Hawkes--he might not get as many dramatic moments and such because characters like Danny stand out more in those scenes, but how can he stand out in dramatic scenes in order to be noticed if he isn't given dramatic scenes in the first place? *sigh*

I don't think the number of posts about him is necessarily an indication of how popular (or not) he is, though--one or two people can keep a thread going (and keep the number of posts climbing), and it really just depends on what the ones who are posting in the forum want to talk about at any given time (be it a character or a storyline or whatever). Even though he's a main character, in some ways he's alongside someone like Sid or Adam as far as development and presence in the show go--and a lot of people like (or even love) characters like that without discussing them. And it's not just limited to more minor characters--I like Mac, but I haven't been into the Mac threads in ages. *shrug*

I don't think race plays into it--certainly not as much as the type of character they created. Sheldon is stable, he's knowledgeable, he's mature, he's professional--and that just doesn't scream ideas for the type of storylines they like to write, does it? Definitely not as much as a more unstable character who needs to learn a thing or two (Danny Messer, I'm looking at you). Maybe they take him for granted, in a way--he's a good character, portrayed by a good actor, and he's always there if you need him. Like he's waiting in the wings and they always know they can use him, and they know they should use him--but the shiny toys (or drama queens) keep distracting them and he gets bumped again.
 
Fay, I agree completely with everything you said. I think it's totally true that it's not how much screentime one gets but how it's used. Danny had way less screentime in "Mrs. Azrael" but everyone remembers him taking off his shirt and complaining about spilling coffee on himself. Hawkes needs more distinctive scenes where he's not just processing evidence and being the genius we know he is--his personality needs to come out more.
 
everyone remembers him taking off his shirt and complaining about spilling coffee on himself.
Not to mention Adam's little geek-tastic moment sniffing the phone and such--it really is the little things that stick with you.

Hawkes needs more distinctive scenes where he's not just processing evidence and being the genius we know he is--his personality needs to come out more.
Seriously--they need to surprise us, show us something we don't know, make us really think about who Sheldon Hawkes is.

That being said, I would love if we got more of his 'encyclopedia of tidbit information' side like we did at the beginning of season 2--not only was it endearing, but it also gave the others a chance to react to him. And that makes for more memorable stuff as well (Mac with the mosquito stuff in 'Summer in the City', Danny with the umbrella in 'Bad Beat', etc).

Don't just have him be an indistinct part of the forensic drama machine--show that he's part of what makes it work.
 
WOW! Normally I just come in here and look around and never post, but I saw this topic and I had to comment. I totally agree, Hawkes doesnt get the meatier story lines or character development that he deserves. All of you make some great points as to why. I agree,he gets screen times,but it's usually just processing evidence and then he just dissapears. It's sad. He is,hands down, my favorite character!
 
hairy0haggis said:
Yes, Hawks is the only black man amongst five 'white people' but then you could say that Stella is the only 'Greek', Lindsey is the only 'Southerner' and Mac is the only... Errr, whatever you call someone from Chicago.

Okay, just in case anyone else reads this and goes nuts. I PMed the guys above and apologised for calling Lindsay a Southerner. They were completely cool about it and now crack me up and I'm sure I won't be able to forget this in a hurry. Dispite the fact that I'm from Scotland, I still should have taken the time out to double check where Lindsay was from. It was ignorant of me and the equivilant of someone calling Scotland a small town in England (which has happened, not here though :rolleyes:).

Anyway, I now realize that she is from the mid-west (Good Lord I hope that's right!!) and I hang my head in shame. Now stop PMing and complaining. I told you guys I was slow when I started on here... it's not my fault you didn't believe me! :lol: I off to buy myself one of those HUGE World maps to put on my wall. So the next daft arsed remark I make will have nothing to do with geography! :p
 
Back
Top