Why Lindsay Must Go, Part 4

[Elwood21]

See, I would've pushed the button.

Luv da button. ...Give in to da button... :lol:

This is mostly correct, although for the sake of clarity, I really didn't mean to imply that either Carmine or Anna (and certainly not DL) merit special credit among others on the show. The topic came up because we were discussing why Anna hadn't been given many significant character storylines outside of DL for some time now - if it was because the producers didn't want to give her anything too difficult to do. I feel that it would be at least as difficut to act out a romantic storyline as it would be to act a solo character arc.

"At least as difficult " I will agree with. Probably circumvents most of what's to follow here :lol:

I can understand the speculation. I dunno know why Lindsay hasn't had many recent storylines that don't tie back into DL. I'm not sure I care :lol:. Who knows the rational of the producers. I can only say that it was noticeable, especially early on in this last season, that Lindsay had very little to do, and I wasn't in the least unhappy about it. I'm not saying that being a part of DL isn't difficult, just that it's not more difficult. I would also think that the producers view DL as valuable in terms of a certain viewership for the show, I don't think they view it as somehow 'lesser,' I don't think they can afford to. You break it you buy it, in that regard. I do think, however, that giving Carmine a huge part in the Box whereas Lindsay had less to do, was telling. Meh. It's ultimately the showrunner's baby, and who knows what evil lurks, yada

I do think Anna's RL pregnancies have determined a lot of what she may have been asked to do on the show, more than 'we can't give her that she'd suck' or 'we hafta give her that cos it'll be awesome.' S3 is a case in point. The dark secret was a great opportunity for Anna, a way to accomodate her maternity leave and still offered a great backstory for Lindsay. Didn't come off so well, imo. Was her testimony scene in the courtroom somehow less difficult than her big schpiel in Right Next Door? Challenging in different ways due different subject matter but both still requiring tapping into some emotions and deeper places. Neither were stellar moments for her. It may well be that there was a learning curve of sorts for the show in all of that too that's been playing out since.

I'm not about to give Anna or Carmine allowances because romance is 'hard.' :lol: I think 'kissing and making goo goo eyes at each other,' as you say, has actually constituted very little of DL's relationship. Most of their interaction is not sexual. I think their pool table dalliance in Snow Day was, ironically, one of Anna's better, more energized performances, though she, and Danny and Lindsay, were no less annoying to me, perhaps even moreso in how the ep wrapped than how it started :lol:. Lindsay knew what she wanted, Anna had a clear line with the character no doubt. :lol:

(I feel slightly at a disadvantage in all this here because I really don't follow DL or Lindsay to recall minutiae that you all seem to discuss in such detail. :lol: Most of the time there's just this vague sense of exasperation and sometimes distaste :lol: For me that's telling too).

That's definitely true, all those are examples of hard acting, because they all demand the actor to be vulnerable in order to be convincing; and in public, too.

Acting is famously about "being private in public." I think that to be convincing and believable means having your emotions at your fingertips, and you'd hafta be unafraid and willing to go where needed. I think that's true whether it's related to romance or not.

I guess I get stuck on the romance because for the CSI shows anyway, it seems like "the odd one out", so to speak. You expect to see comedy on CSI shows, and a lot of it is the delivery of the actors' lines. You expect to see action, even grief, and definitely humanization of the characters. But romance as really-long-term storylines between the characters, has (rightly) for the most part been left out of the CSI shows until about four years ago.... That doesn't make it any less exposing for the actors who have to act the part; but I do think it's why some might consider Anna as getting the "easy", DL-related storylines that don't really challenge her as an actress. D and L may just have to kiss and make goo-goo eyes at each other for the fans to squeal and find it convincing - that doesn't mean it suddenly requires less vulnerability or effort to get that kiss or those goo-goo eyes right, and as we've seen sometimes it doesn't come across convincingly at all.

Why relationships became so prominent on each show in a franchise that avoided it for so long is a bigger question, and I only hope it doesn't further dilute NY. It does lead me to be quite cynical in considering it.

I'm sure people do dismiss DL, and Lindsay because of it, and I do think they were a hugely contrived pairing and imposition. I don't think that DL isn't challenging to portray, I'm saying the writing and realization of it comes off as inconsistent, confuddling, and ultimately exasperating and unengaging. And I think that Lindsay has so few other things either given to her or going for her that this becomes a defining element of her character and what's associated with her. I think goo goo eyes are the least of her worries. I think the Dark Secret should have been a great story for her character, but again felt poorly realized. I think most times Anna is asked to be emotional her performances feel scripted and ultimately unconvincing. I dunno if that means anything that requires a general vulnerability equates with an unimpressive performance, but I don't think that Lindsay's relationship with Danny is the only example of such from Anna, and I'm still not convinced that kind of vulnerability is so distinctive or removed from any other. Nor that it actually somehow conversely illustrates just how wonderful Anna is as an actor. The work she did on MI doesn't lead me to extend her credit in a larger sense either.

I certainly agree that neither Carmine nor Anna appear to understand why the hell Danny and Lindsay are together at all, let alone after all this time. But I can't agree that Danny is the only character to have suffered from DL, whereas Lindsay has benefitted.

To be clearer then. I do think Lindsay's popularity has benefited due her attachment with Danny. I don't think she as a character has benefited from primarily being a love interest. But I'm also not convinced that Anna would do much with anything else tossed her way. We'll see what she gets in S6 with Danny being injured and a newborn child. Ya know. Baited breath an' all that :lol:

Danny and Lindsay didn't even interact in half the episodes I would catch her in - I became interested in her because I was curious about this character that everyone seemed to care a lot about, but who held all her coworkers at bay behind this wall of hers. She seemed to have a story. She seemed to have trouble getting her feelings across, but it was like she was trying to learn. I did notice that she seemed to be closer friends with Danny than with anyone else, but I thought that was because of who Danny was - utterly emotional, gets-under-your-skin-and-doesn't-leave - it just seemed to make sense that he'd be the only one who could push past Lindsay's wall. I really didn't realize it was supposed to be more than friendship until I saw "Snow Day" (which I watched before seeing "Sleight Out of Hand", or even "Love Run Cold") - I literally thought D and L had just had a one-night-stand, and even then it seemed like a bad idea. I know that series-wise, DL has been set up from the beginning, but up to S5, it's actually very hard to tell that they're supposed to be a pair unless you've watched all the episodes in order.

I can't say I share similar views or intrigue with Lindsay as a character, but that's just me. I think I was already being worn out in my benevolent tolerance of her by the time Snow Day rolled around . I caught up on S4 more than I sat thru it, I wasn't around much at the time. That ambivalence wore away over S3 and started to turn in S4, but didn't fully become outright annoyance and occasionally disdain until this past season. S5 I got hugely peeved at the change in direction DL took and the focus it was getting, especially after the initial spoilers for the season suggested that Danny and Lindsay both were to get separate, independent storylines; I became unapologetically and vastly fed up with having to sit thru it all.

I think part of the problem with DL has been that ambiguity that you describe. Especially after Snow Day. S4 was utterly perplexing where they were concerned, as much as S3 was in the path that they took in getting together.

To me, she certainly stood out far more than Angell (who is definitely a Mary Sue, and even more of one than Lindsay is - because at least Lindsay has flaws, even if we're not always supposed to see them as flaws). I will say that they didn't bring Angell in solely for the sake of pairing her with Flack, like they did with Lindsay; but she also didn't have much of any significance to say untilthey started pairing her with Flack.

:lol: See, I never saw Angell as anything except another homicide detective, like Maka, like Sophia on Vegas (who was really good imo). When Angell appeared in S3 I don't think she was a Mary Sue at all. She was just the next recurring cop for the season. How flawed are they supposed to be...? :lol: I had no idea if she'd be back in any episode, or even the following season, and had no real opinion on it. I think Angell didn't have much to give her depth or backstory, and was a good character due consistent performances and by way of the personality and humor that came thru, an attitude and swagger that fit in and played well. She held her own with those she was with. I don't think she stood out for any reason, I don't think she was favored in any way, I don't think she was universally wangsty or the like. I think she was enough of a presence to stand on her own without her pairing with Flack. She, like Sinclair and Gerrard, was a recurring who served a purpose within the show, though hers was added onto in S5, ie. become involved and then get deaded. I think that her death pre-empted knowing what she might have been like had there been space or interest in making her a regular instead, or developing her further. She had the most appearances in a season in S5 than she did in any prior. I don't really feel that we knew her well enough to think she was perfect or flawed. I do very much have the opinion that EV has the chops to have played anything that might have been written for Angell.

I'm not actually terribly keen on delving into Mary Suedom as a general arguement pro or con for any character, and it's not something I tend to refer to often, the above may be the first ever :lol:, but I can understand how Lindsay gets pegged as that especially because of her relationship with Danny, who is undeniably a central character on NY. I think that Lindsay is exasperating because we're not supposed to see her flaws as flaws, that she's somehow excusable, she's rarely held to account for any mistakes like the rest are (your petty rules don't apply to me). She does feel favored in that respect, she does sometimes come across to me as wangsty and entitled (everything is somehow about me), she was hired for an apparently spectacular and tenacious blood drop analysis (I'm a genius), possesses a generic expertise in everything depicted for us thru an endless succession of behold-my-brilliance-demonstrations (I'm really really a genius), indulge me I'm pregnant (life is hard but I'm plucky and stalwart and adorable and overcoming everything due my awesomeness all the same am I not?), look I'm funny and charming (spray on condom, any scene coasting with Flack, any and every demonstration) and tuff and stronk (I tackle perpage, I bust chops in interrogation, and gosh darn it, I'm from ...where again? Crap, can't remember ). That's partly the writing, and partly the performance. I don't have an opinion on her haircut as some do :lol: I'm not sure what the last word on a Mary Sue is or who has it. I'm pretty sure I don't really care. Lindsay should feel a more complex character, as complex and layered as her back story should lead her to be, but somehow she isn't.

Why wouldn't Lindsay's "I need to know why" moment at the end of Stealing Home (with the prisoner) not count as a character moment? It was clearly emotionally important to her and clearly personal even then, even if she (fittingly) didn't share it with any of her coworkers. And I suppose I agree about the challenging aspect of those emotional scenes, that it would take a lot to make them convincing. But I'm seriously not convinced that Lindsay's monologue in Right Next Door, or the pool-table moment in Snow Day is somehow less difficult than those emotional scenes, either. It's emotion and intent all the same.

:lol: ah, you see, I don't remember her "I need to know why" moment at the end of Stealing Home. Doesn't mean she didn't have a character moment as you describe, and I'm not saying it wasn't important to her character, whether anyone else was there or not. I am saying it apparently wasn't one that memorable to me, didn't have the same impact, to the degree I could recall it off the top of my head to add it to the list :lol: I had to look it up to understand your reference.

I do think she was generally at her best in S2 as a character, but she still had moments that annoyed me even then. I had far more patience for them then :lol:. I just went back to revisit some of those scenes. Her monologue in Right Next Door still causes me to vaguely wince. Stealing Home was an ep I remembered far more for the threesome storyline, and more for Stella, Hawkes and Mac than for Lindsay and the mermaid. (Can I say too that all the sound f/x to match every zoom and cut, and every computer graphic, greivously stood out and was hugely annoying :lol It was a good ep for Hawkes too. Lindsay's early attitude towards suspects came off with a certain snideness that made me wish for a Gibbs headslap upside, even though Flack was standing beside her doing much the same. I think Lindsay was best in the scene with the father, better there even than in the end going to see the guy in prison to ask 'why.'

As for depicting relationships, I'm not sure we're necessarily disagreeing :lol:

My point about relationships is that they are still emotion and intent, just like other kinds of scenes :lol:.

My feeling is that they should not be kept or considered somehow separate from everything else. It's another aspect of telling stories. I think they may not necessarily differ in the nature of the challenge it provides for an actor in that it requires them channeling emotions to infuse the scene with a believable spontanaeity and life. I might venture to say that most actors want to feel, want to be challenged to do so, to find a way to serve a character and a moment, whatever it happens to be, to find out what it is, and to find a way to get there, inside out or outside in or some combo of both, making choices, and ultimately getting out of one's head to just do it. I think actors are as much on an arc as anyone else, that there will be times when roles or things within a role will have a deeper personal meaning than others, things they might dig into more. I think challenges are probably the juice for an actor, other than simply just wanting to make a living.

My point was that scenes between characters in a romantic relationship are very often not about "romance" at all.

My point is that I don't think they're categorically harder than other scenes, not that they aren't 'hard' or challenging in their own right :lol:. I think acting is hard.

I'm also saying that Anna's track record with emotional stuff in general, in any scene that places that kind of demand on her, isn't consistently convincing or moving or even interesting. At least to me. I am often distracted in those scenes by her performances in them, that duality again, the schism her performance often seems to suffer from, that lack of seamlessness. That's my point :lol:. I think :lol:. Long and confusing.

And now, coffee. I'm sure this will make no sense to me whatsoever once I have some coffee.

 

[under_cover]

im actually smiling while reading this thread. ive been waiting for this. =) Elwood21, TOP41, JellyBelly, Maya and CsiCupcake you guys rock!
=)

ehhh, i thought i was at Who's more Damaged Thread...

 

[Maya316]

And now, coffee. I'm sure this will make no sense to me whatsoever once I have some coffee.

LOL, no it made tons of sense! *crosses fingers* Let's see if I can do the same, now:lol:

See, I can't just cross off Carmine's stronger presence in "The Box" as the producers feeling that Carmine was the only one strong enough to make DL even halfway credible. Especially since they had fairly-equal screentime in "Greater Good", which I'd think was at least as important as "The Box" to carry off successfully. No, I don't think Belknap would've done half so well had they turned the focus on her. But we can't entirely overlook the fact that this season, "The Box" was the only chance Danny really had to be typical wangsty. Even in S3 he had chances outside of DL. While he carried the angst in "The Box" great he fell flat when talking about Lindsay - others have noticed it, too - and not surprisingly, the focus of his monologue was therefore on his feelings for the baby and why Lindsay kept it from him, rather than on Lindsay herself. I'm not seeing coincidence here. He needed a chance to "shine" character-wise as much as any other character did, and the angst is where Carmine gives his best performances.

I do think Anna's RL pregnancies have determined a lot of what she may have been asked to do on the show, more than 'we can't give her that she'd suck' or 'we hafta give her that cos it'll be awesome.' S3 is a case in point. The dark secret was a great opportunity for Anna, a way to accomodate her maternity leave and still offered a great backstory for Lindsay. Didn't come off so well, imo. Was her testimony scene in the courtroom somehow less difficult than her big schpiel in Right Next Door? Challenging in different ways due different subject matter but both still requiring tapping into some emotions and deeper places. Neither were stellar moments for her. It may well be that there was a learning curve of sorts for the show in all of that too that's been playing out since.

It could also be that being pregnant, she didn't have much screentime? Even in S3, despite the storyline, she was barely present. The "dark secret" itself was focused on in what, three episodes? Even including "The Lying Game" as one of those episodes seems a little generous. She had at least as many moments in S5. She even had her very own "all about me" emotional soliloquoy in "Greater Good" . It really doesn't seem like the producers are learning some sort of lesson about her emotive acting; except that it's probably best when not put in unrealistic situations (*cough*dark-secret*cough*). To me (and I know not everyone sees it the same), the "Right Next Door" spiel sounded far more believable than her breakdown in "Silent Night", and it's easy to see why. I thought the testimony ranked only slightly above the "Silent Night" breakdown, although I did find the first part of the testimony to be more convincing. I usually tend to be doing something else when I'm watching TV, no matter how much I like the show. So for me, it has to be as much about the inflection of the actors' voices and the way they say things, as it has to be about their expression - because that's what usually draws my attention away from my task to the TV. I don't remember Belknap's expression, but Lindsay did sound like she was about to cry when she asked if they could stop the trial.

I'm not about to give Anna or Carmine allowances because romance is 'hard.' :lol: I think 'kissing and making goo goo eyes at each other,' as you say, has actually constituted very little of DL's relationship. Most of their interaction is not sexual. I think their pool table dalliance in Snow Day was, ironically, one of Anna's better, more energized performances, though she, and Danny and Lindsay, were no less annoying to me, perhaps even moreso in how the ep wrapped than how it started :lol:. Lindsay knew what she wanted, Anna had a clear line with the character no doubt. :lol:

True, DL isn't much with the kissing, but that just means it's all about the annoying googly-eyes and cheesy grins and snuck glances, not to mention the way they say the lines .. which is annoying, but I definitely think would be hard to perform without feeling like an idiot.:lol: I think their performances in "Snow Day" was one of their better ones, but to me it's never really been Anna who's struggled with portraying DL no matter what the situation. Although yes, I totally agree that DL has been fragmented, contrived, inconsistent, disengaging, and I could easily go on.

I think that Lindsay has so few other things either given to her or going for her that this becomes a defining element of her character and what's associated with her. I think goo goo eyes are the least of her worries. I think the Dark Secret should have been a great story for her character, but again felt poorly realized. I think most times Anna is asked to be emotional her performances feel scripted and ultimately unconvincing. I dunno if that means anything that requires a general vulnerability equates with an unimpressive performance, but I don't think that Lindsay's relationship with Danny is the only example of such from Anna, and I'm still not convinced that kind of vulnerability is so distinctive or removed from any other. Nor that it actually somehow conversely illustrates just how wonderful Anna is as an actor. The work she did on MI doesn't lead me to extend her credit in a larger sense either.

I agree that DL seems to be a defining element of Lindsay, but I think it has more to do with the purpose she was brought onto the show for, than anything else. She was brought onto the show to be paired with Danny. That's it. She's able to stand on her own, IMO, because she does in the episodes where she doesn't interact with Danny - but the writers don't seem to think so as much. The very few isolated character moments we get, and the storylines that could result from them, often seem to be purposely stifled for the sake of promoting DL; but to me, her emotions usually come across effectively in them. There are times when I feel the script, but it's not nearly as frequently as pointed out on this thread. I never saw Anna on Medical Investigation, but if she was basically brought onto CSI:NY to play Danny's love interest, she's doing her job. Heck, IMO, I really think she's doing better than that, because for me it's Anna who gives Lindsay any truly defining, emotional character traits that give her character any potential.

I have trouble seeing the season-3 storyline as this great opportunity for Lindsay's character, because it really just seemed to emphasize my point about Lindsay and DL. It showed how very little thought the writers had put into Lindsay's character. The backstory had potential, but I completely agree it was poorly realized. I don't think Lindsay was ever supposed to confront her past - and why should she have to? There are few, if any other characters on the CSI shows (that I know of) who've confronted their pasts like this, because that just closes the storyline. Not even Mac seems to have fully gotten closure on Claire's death. Half the effectiveness of Lindsay's backstory was in the randomness of Daniel Katum's crime and the fact that he got away, and we saw this come to the fore in "Stealing Home". As far as we know, Daniel Katum chose a diner at random and shot the four strangers he found inside; without even the added motive of robbery or vengeance. And then he was left to wander free for the next fifteen years or so. It's unbelievable that Lindsay would even want to become a cop after this, IMO, even if she were able to get over the massive survivor's guilt and the loss of her friends. Justice and law enforcement should realistically be the last things she believes in. But if she did, I can imagine the need to know why would be a primary drive for her.

Instead, the writers had her confront her past and get closure - that just tells me they only came up with the idea, literally the same day that Anna Belknap told the producers she was pregnant. They slapped an unrealistic fairy-tale conclusion on the backstory, and told her to act it. That doesn't sound like it was planned for a character they thought had potential to stand on her own. That sounds like they needed a "good" reason to explain why DL would be dropped for the next few months, only to resume literally the day Lindsay got back from her trial/Anna came back from maternity leave. It was at least as contrived as anything DL has ever come up with, and maybe even harder to act - there was nothing realistic in any of Lindsay's reactions to having to confront her past, and no way to make such reactions believable. No matter how vulnerable the actress makes herself, or how much emotion she might (or might not) bring to the yard.

To be clearer then. I do think Lindsay's popularity has benefited due her attachment with Danny. I don't think she as a character has benefited from primarily being a love interest. But I'm also not convinced that Anna would do much with anything else tossed her way. We'll see what she gets in S6 with Danny being injured and a newborn child. Ya know. Baited breath an' all that :lol:

True; I'm wary of S6, but I'm interested to see what they're going to do with her character. I agree about Lindsay's popularity benefitting from DL, but that could be turned on Danny, too. Danny was easily popular in S1 when he stood on his own, and even now he stands on his own as a character that attracts plenty of fans. He would've been popular without DL. But do I think his popularity would've skyrocketed above that of the other characters on fanfiction-writing sites, without it? No, I don't. I definitely know how it feels to hate what DL has done to Danny's character - it has utterly damaged it, as I feel it has damaged Lindsay's character. But it hasn't exactly hurt Danny's popularity.

I can't say I share similar views or intrigue with Lindsay as a character, but that's just me. I think I was already being worn out in my benevolent tolerance of her by the time Snow Day rolled around . I caught up on S4 more than I sat thru it, I wasn't around much at the time. That ambivalence wore away over S3 and started to turn in S4, but didn't fully become outright annoyance and occasionally disdain until this past season. S5 I got hugely peeved at the change in direction DL took and the focus it was getting, especially after the initial spoilers for the season suggested that Danny and Lindsay both were to get separate, independent storylines; I became unapologetically and vastly fed up with having to sit thru it all.

I think part of the problem with DL has been that ambiguity that you describe. Especially after Snow Day. S4 was utterly perplexing where they were concerned, as much as S3 was in the path that they took in getting together.

:lol: I completely feel your frustration with S5. I've never thought DL was a good idea, but in S4 it was as palatable as FA was this season - because I barely, if ever, heard about it until "Right Next Door". I understand how that ambiguity injured the consistency of the relationship, but really, I was okay with that. It meant Lindsay was starting to stand out again, toward the beginning of S4 - forming stronger connections, growing a little closer to people, etc. I thought they were continuing this little character-arc of hers that I'd noticed. I was sickened to find out that (as admitted by Anna Belknap herself on the S4 DVD interviews), the extra dynamism to her character in early Season-4 was supposed to be because "she was happy in her relationship with Danny" - and then beyond angry when all those extra character-moments and efforts to form connection took a sharp about-face because things went south with Danny. Don't even get me started on S5! I only just found a few weeks ago that the producers were going to take Danny and Lindsay in separate, independent storylines before Anna Belknap got pregnant. I came this close to crying when I found out.

:lol: See, I never saw Angell as anything except another homicide detective, like Maka, like Sophia on Vegas (who was really good imo). When Angell appeared in S3 I don't think she was a Mary Sue at all. She was just the next recurring cop for the season. How flawed are they supposed to be...? :lol: I had no idea if she'd be back in any episode, or even the following season, and had no real opinion on it. I think Angell didn't have much to give her depth or backstory, and was a good character due consistent performances and by way of the personality and humor that came thru, an attitude and swagger that fit in and played well. She held her own with those she was with. I don't think she stood out for any reason, I don't think she was favored in any way, I don't think she was universally wangsty or the like. I think she was enough of a presence to stand on her own without her pairing with Flack. She, like Sinclair and Gerrard, was a recurring who served a purpose within the show, though hers was added onto in S5, ie. become involved and then get deaded. I think that her death pre-empted knowing what she might have been like had there been space or interest in making her a regular instead, or developing her further. She had the most appearances in a season in S5 than she did in any prior. I don't really feel that we knew her well enough to think she was perfect or flawed. I do very much have the opinion that EV has the chops to have played anything that might have been written for Angell.

I know Angell wasn't supposed to be anything more than a homicide-detective, although I really feel that even Yelina on Miami (the little I saw of her) and Sofia were more well-rounded than Angell was. Yelina frequently came across as wilfully-oblivious, especially when it came to her husband; and Sofia had a number of flaws that we saw made her clash with different characters. I'd say they had a presence. Whereas everyone seemed to love Angell and have no conflict with her - the ones that met her, anyway. She bugged me when I noticed her, but honestly I really didn't register her much until Season 5. I completely, completely agree on Lindsay's Mary-Sue-dom, though :lol:. She really was written as little else. Her backstory should give her more depth. Still does a little, imo, and would more, if they hadn't closed the storyline in Season 3. I felt that depth in Season 2 and early Season 3 (not so much with the crying and the breakdowns and the skipped tasks, but even in my early days of CSI-fan-ishness when I was just episode-hopping really, I could tell something was wrong with Lindsay in S3 episodes without having seen "Oedipus Hex" or "Silent Night").

ETA: (Just to clarify one extra thing). I totally believe that Emmanuelle Vaugier would've been able to pull off anything that the writers gave her, because she was the only good thing about Angell. But I also don't really believe she just "happened" to be killed off before she could become well-rounded. It's hard to discuss May-Sue-ness, but there've only been three Mary-Sue-like characters on this show (Angell, Peyton, Lindsay); and it's the only one with actual flaws that's still standing. Even Sofia Curtis was briefly made a regular before she was written out of Vegas, and lasted four seasons on the show. Something about her made her interesting enough. Especially in light of this new regular they're adding to the NY cast, I really think it's Angell's lack of substance that made her expendable. Had Angell's character been salvageable and therefore interesting, they probably would've held off on adding a new regular, even negotiated into keeping EV on as a recurring character, if it was really budget that was the problem.

I do think she was generally at her best in S2 as a character, but she still had moments that annoyed me even then. I had far more patience for them then :lol:. I just went back to revisit some of those scenes. Her monologue in Right Next Door still causes me to vaguely wince. Stealing Home was an ep I remembered far more for the threesome storyline, and more for Stella, Hawkes and Mac than for Lindsay and the mermaid. (Can I say too that all the sound f/x to match every zoom and cut, and every computer graphic, greivously stood out and was hugely annoying :lol It was a good ep for Hawkes too. Lindsay's early attitude towards suspects came off with a certain snideness that made me wish for a Gibbs headslap upside, even though Flack was standing beside her doing much the same. I think Lindsay was best in the scene with the father, better there even than in the end going to see the guy in prison to ask 'why.'

I don't exactly class the "Right Next Door" monologue as a shining moment for either Lindsay or Anna's acting - but did it make me believe that Lindsay was hurt and lashing out? Yeah, it did, and I think it was supposed to..so, good enough for me. She pulled it off. It's the crying from "Silent Night" that makes me wince, usually. Belknap's performance in "Stealing Home" really stood out to me (although Hawkes and the threesome storyline came in a close second!) and to me, it seemed like it would've been a challenge to act that out. Getting so obssessed with a case for those personal reasons, while trying to keep it together to keep anyone from finding out why you're so obssessed with said case. And I even half got the feeling that Lindsay herself didn't really understand why needing to know "why" was so important to her. Belknap seemed to grasp that, and for me the emotions came through - but I'm not sure how much of Lindsay's fragmented, inconsistent performances can be put down to Belknap's acting, as opposed to the way Lindsay was written. It often seems like she was written in one, very-unrealistic, idealized way; Anna Belknap tried to take her character in a different, more realistic direction; the writers struggled to catch up while still keeping Lindsay within the bounds of her "purpose" on the show (DL), and the result is a seamless, inconsistent character with very Mary-Sue-like tendencies. Although I do agree about her bitchiness with suspects! :lol: It's a part of why I like her - she's certainly not the first CSI to be bitchy with suspects - but it does say a lot about her as a character/person.

LOL, now I've rambled! Hope this makes sense, and wasn't too long...

 

[Top41]

So much good stuff to respond to here! I know I won't be able to hit on all of the points, but will try for at least a few. Or a few and then some, lol. :lol:

I don't think Danny and Lindsay are about romance or a love story any more than I thought Danny and Rikki were. The problem is, I think Danny and Lindsay were supposed to be about romance and a love story, I think they were intended to be the prototypical office romance, and have come to be treated as if they were always meant to be this Once Inna Lifetime Twu Wuv. A definite soap opera and a definite turn off, and have been for the past three seasons.

I think DL relies heavily on (I might say coasts on) a fandom fascination with the Idea of Romance, that exploration, idealizing it. I definitely think that Lindsay benefits as a character because of this. I never viewed Angell at all in the same way. She did stand on her own, and the pairing with Flack felt like 1+1=3 because each existed outside of FA.

Word to so much of what you've posted (I can't quote everything I agree with, or I'll have a three-part post :lol: ) but yes, agree, agree, agree!

AB's done less with more where others just seem to have done far more with less.

Yes, exactly--that's exactly how I feel about her. I feel like she was handed a decently interesting and somewhat layered character when she started--the same way all the other actors were. Yes, I realize there's dissonance in playing someone who is supposed to be eager and upbeat and also haunted by a tragedy... but that's acting. That's real life. Upbeat people go through terrible things, too, and it doesn't necessarily make them bitter or one thing one day and another the next. I think she got an interesting character to start with--someone who has channeled her pain and tragedy into something positive--and played her with little to no depth. There was no consistency from week to week, and that's not all on the writers by any means. Lindsay needed to have a core personality no matter what the lines said--and Belknap never gave her that. Danny's done things against or even out of character in some scripts, but even if it felt off, I always believed it was Danny doing it because Carmine has really defined him as a person. Anna has never done that for Lindsay.

There's not one I can recall just off the top of my head where Lindsay's been concerned, nothing that's stayed with me in the same way. And I don't believe that the scenes I mentioned above were somehow easier or less challenging than Danny and Lindsay's proposal scene, or the monologue of Doom, or any other of their moments of interaction. It's still emotion and intent. You are seriously not gonna convince me that DL somehow deserve credit and consideration over and above because romance is 'hard to do.'

That's how I feel as well... the emotional scenes are the ones that stick with me, and every character has had them in some way or another. Most of the actors have made them really memorable, but when Lindsay has had them, they've just been cringe-inducing.

Lol, true :lol: I don't think it would be as great were it Mac or Stella, but I do think it would've been done with either of them, were Danny unavailable for some reason.

Maybe it's just me, but I see that episode as wholly and completely driven by Danny. Sure, Mac and Stella can and have done on the spot forensics. But Danny is the only one who pushes that red button, and that's the genesis for the episode. Danny is the only one who gripes and complains like a sulky child. And Danny is the only one who, when the killer points a gun at him, is more angry about the guy having the code than he is scared or worried about being taken hostage. That episode was born out of and thrives on the appeal of Danny, from start to finish.

If we picture every single one of Lindsay's lines up to "All Access" played by a warmer, open actress, there is absolutely no way to tell that Lindsay is supposed to be affected at all by her bloody past. None.

Oh, I disagree completely here--I think a warmer actress would have shown hurt rather than just anger and brittleness.

The closest is possibly her "I've seen worse scenes than that before" line from Manhattan Manhunt, and even that seems like it was originally just written as Lindsay being defensive, rather than haunted (there were more dead kids shot by Darius than there were in Lindsay's diner memory).

I think that was a direct reference to the bloody secret. While I don't think the bloody secret was well-defined from the first, it was there right from the beginning--it's always been in the character's bio, and Anna knew about it from the start.

I think part of what I struggle with when talking about Anna's weaknesses as an actress is that I don't know why I should cut an actress on a hit television show any slack. I cannot believe that Anna walked in as a series regular and was given less material to work with than AJ Buckley, who was recurring in a bit part... and yet AJ has never fumbled a line or portrayed anything unrealistically. Same with Robert Joy. Same with Carmine or Hill or Eddie. And I don't think that what she was handed was all that more difficult than what Carmine was--he's supposed to be this wise-cracking tough Italian-American who also is insecure and damaged and needy. Those two descriptions are kind of at odds with each other, but Carmine sort of molded that to make the character real. I doubt Danny is quite as tough as he was originally intended to be, and probably is a little more emotional, but he works as a character because the writers and Carmine made him real. I think the writers tried to do the same with Lindsay--giving her storylines like "Stealing Home" but Anna didn't really follow suit.

Well, that's pretty much what made it feel like it wasn't scripted - there'd be no reason for the writers to suddenly get Hawkes to pick up on Danny's un-used nickname, but Hawkes is certainly the only other character close enough to Lindsay to use it. I guess it's possible that it was scripted - although being fair, Mac has a ton of stuff to his character, and it doesn't stop them from reminding us in almost every 5th episode that he used to be a Marine. But if it was, the writers might well have been picking up on that unscripted warmth I see between Hawkes and Lindsay, because script-wise, there's never been much to heavily indicate that they are close outside of being coworkers.

Not to be cynical, but I think that was just another DL moment, because Lindsay's immediate reaction wasn't to smile or make a joke about Hawkes calling her that, but to lament that she hasn't heard that in a while... clearly a reference to Danny.

But I don't think they'd ever planned to have her confront her secret,

Why would they bring it up in the description and not have her confront it? That's just bad storytelling. The minute it showed up in that description (from the minute the character was brought on the show basically), it was just a matter of time, in the same way that Danny's "Tanglewood" connections were going to be explored at some point as soon as they were brought up. That stuff can't be left dangling--it has to be paid off once it's introduced.

let alone told Belknap that; until Anna told them she was pregnant and would need maternity leave. S3 was an about-face for Lindsay too, really.

But why would they wait until Anna is pregnant and out of the picture to explore a major storyline for her character? I think the plan was to delve into her dark secret all along in season three, and then Anna got pregnant. They didn't technically have to write her out for any episodes for her to go testify at the trial since we saw it on screen.

Whatever half-realistic drive enabled her to become a cop despite her past, it should've (realistically) been ripped away by having to directly confront that past. Breakdowns like the one she should've gone through leave people in the hospital. It's impossible to convincingly act a character who can not only have that breakdown and still be functional, but can also still work as a cop. It would be hard to even try.

Not everyone who has something traumatic happen to them has a breakdown. I think Anna chose to play her in a brittle way, and I think that was a mistake given the character's bio--the tragedy is what drove her to become a CSI. The character's motivations came from an inner strength, which I think is possible and realistic, but Anna started playing her as such a whiny wuss towards the end of season two. I saw a realistic Lindsay I could have liked in "Stealing Home," but she never really matched that performance again.

Rikki/Danny (the one scene we saw of it, anyway), only made sense because of the damage in Danny's character. I can't imagine either Hawkes, or Flack, or even Mac deciding to use sex to make up for their guilt, no matter how utterly destroyed they might've felt had they been the ones to know Ruben. But yeah, at least Carmine knew the trigger for what Danny felt he owed Rikki.

Absolutely, and that's a big part of the reason that I love that storyline. It absolutely wasn't healthy in any way, but it very much spoke to both who Danny is as a character and what he'd been through. And Carmine played it just right--I absolutely knew why Danny was begging her to stay that morning after they slept together.

If we add all the D/L mini-stories to Lindsay's list, then her storyline collection starts to skyrocket above those of the other secondary characters; almost comes even with Danny's non-D/L-related storylines, actually. It tells me the writers are likewise responding to a strength of Belknap's.

See, for me it says the writers are responding to a young demographic that loves the pairing--trying to draw in the Twilight crowd. The fact that all of her storylines are D/L related tells me that's the only draw for the character.

Otherwise, especially given Carmine's achilles' heel, they'd probably leave D/L much more in the background than they do now. Like they did with Grissom/Sara. They certainly don't need the extra reason to take storylines away from the other characters.

I don't think Grissom and Sara's romance was any less in the foreground than Danny and Lindsay's, but Petersen and Fox are far less flashy, as are their characters. And a much more realistic pairing IMO (though just as controversial in fandom!) because they did communicate (though their lack of physicality with each other did stand out).

"Subtle acting" might've been the wrong term - what I like about Belknap's acting is that I can usually tell what Lindsay is feeling right off the bat, even if it's never explicitly said (and, I've never really noticed the face-scrunch thing . I notice the way her voice gives certain inflections to different lines - like the almost-bitter "She's only 22 years old" one from Live or Let Die, and the way she couldn't forget the vic; that made me think Lindsay was haunted).

She sounds bitter a lot. Whereas other characters are shocked, saddened, subdued, horrified... she just kind of has that one edge-of-anger emotion to roll out.

I do think, however, that giving Carmine a huge part in the Box whereas Lindsay had less to do, was telling.

Agreed. That tells me what character they think the audience most connects with and what actor handles the meaty material the best.

I think the Dark Secret should have been a great story for her character, but again felt poorly realized. I think most times Anna is asked to be emotional her performances feel scripted and ultimately unconvincing.

That's exactly how I feel. I always feel like I'm watching an actress playing a character when I watch her. The script is always there--there's just not a lot of naturalness to her performances.

:lol: See, I never saw Angell as anything except another homicide detective, like Maka, like Sophia on Vegas (who was really good imo). When Angell appeared in S3 I don't think she was a Mary Sue at all. She was just the next recurring cop for the season. How flawed are they supposed to be...? :lol: I had no idea if she'd be back in any episode, or even the following season, and had no real opinion on it. I think Angell didn't have much to give her depth or backstory, and was a good character due consistent performances and by way of the personality and humor that came thru, an attitude and swagger that fit in and played well. She held her own with those she was with. I don't think she stood out for any reason, I don't think she was favored in any way, I don't think she was universally wangsty or the like.

Exactly. Angell was part of the story, but not in any flashy way. A Mary Sue makes herself stand out by being oh-so-dramatic, like storming out of interrogations and leaving crime scenes.

I think that Lindsay is exasperating because we're not supposed to see her flaws as flaws, that she's somehow excusable, she's rarely held to account for any mistakes like the rest are (your petty rules don't apply to me). She does feel favored in that respect, she does sometimes come across to me as wangsty and entitled (everything is somehow about me), she was hired for an apparently spectacular and tenacious blood drop analysis (I'm a genius), possesses a generic expertise in everything depicted for us thru an endless succession of behold-my-brilliance-demonstrations (I'm really really a genius), indulge me I'm pregnant (life is hard but I'm plucky and stalwart and adorable and overcoming everything due my awesomeness all the same am I not?), look I'm funny and charming (spray on condom, any scene coasting with Flack, any and every demonstration) and tuff and stronk (I tackle perpage, I bust chops in interrogation, and gosh darn it, I'm from ...where again? Crap, can't remember ).

Bingo--you've pretty much nailed why I can't stand the character of Lindsay in one succinct paragraph. Maya and I have been having a great conversation in the "Damage" thread (which I need to get back to!!) about the character, and I have to say, she's opened my eyes to a lot in the character that I haven't thought about before. I'm slightly more sympathetic... but I keep coming back to this stuff, and those are things I can't stand about her, and that I see as being the most consistent.

And a second part on the way....

 

[Top41]

Especially since they had fairly-equal screentime in "Greater Good", which I'd think was at least as important as "The Box" to carry off successfully.

It's harder to ignore her when she's actually giving birth to the baby. "Greater Good" really struck me as a true ensemble piece--I think almost everyone had something to do, because it was meant to emphasize the team as a family. "The Box" was about Danny and Lindsay--but really mostly about Danny.

No, I don't think Belknap would've done half so well had they turned the focus on her. But we can't entirely overlook the fact that this season, "The Box" was the only chance Danny really had to be typical wangsty. Even in S3 he had chances outside of DL. While he carried the angst in "The Box" great he fell flat when talking about Lindsay - others have noticed it, too - and not surprisingly, the focus of his monologue was therefore on his feelings for the baby and why Lindsay kept it from him, rather than on Lindsay herself. I'm not seeing coincidence here. He needed a chance to "shine" character-wise as much as any other character did, and the angst is where Carmine gives his best performances.

I think that's definitely true--it was Danny's big drama episode for the season. But at the same time, the fact that the spotlight was solely on him is telling in my book. Even without being able to convince us--or himself--that he's in love with Lindsay, he absolutely sells Danny's confusion and dawning excitement over the prospect of the baby.

It could also be that being pregnant, she didn't have much screentime?

But how does that explain season four? It's not about the time but how it's used... and mostly she just does lab work.

I agree that DL seems to be a defining element of Lindsay, but I think it has more to do with the purpose she was brought onto the show for, than anything else. She was brought onto the show to be paired with Danny. That's it.

I'm still not convinced of that because of several reasons: she came with the whole lightening up of the show in general, she was given a dark secret (which didn't even really involved Danny until the end) and the writers were going to move away from the romance in season five until Anna got pregnant. I think D/L became the crutch they relied on heavily once it became clear Anna's acting was pretty weak.

She's able to stand on her own, IMO, because she does in the episodes where she doesn't interact with Danny - but the writers don't seem to think so as much.

But why don't they think so? That's what I wonder about. Personally, I think she kind of fades into the background without DL. She's often uninteresting--to me at least--and sometimes downright annoying, though she's been a lot less annoying since she stopped storming out of crime scenes.

It showed how very little thought the writers had put into Lindsay's character. The backstory had potential, but I completely agree it was poorly realized.

I actually think it was decently written, but Anna's performances took the wind out of its sails.

It was at least as contrived as anything DL has ever come up with, and maybe even harder to act - there was nothing realistic in any of Lindsay's reactions to having to confront her past, and no way to make such reactions believable. No matter how vulnerable the actress makes herself, or how much emotion she might (or might not) bring to the yard.

See, I think it could have been totally believable, had it been played differently. Here you have this strong woman who has tried to make peace with and overcome her past--and suddenly it's come right to the surface as these things sometimes do in life. Instead we got shrill and brittle and angry. I don't think Anna ever really properly conveyed the strength Lindsay was supposed to have to have survived that tragedy and gone on to try to prevent it/bring similar criminals to justice.

True; I'm wary of S6, but I'm interested to see what they're going to do with her character. I agree about Lindsay's popularity benefitting from DL, but that could be turned on Danny, too. Danny was easily popular in S1 when he stood on his own, and even now he stands on his own as a character that attracts plenty of fans. He would've been popular without DL. But do I think his popularity would've skyrocketed above that of the other characters on fanfiction-writing sites, without it? No, I don't. I definitely know how it feels to hate what DL has done to Danny's character - it has utterly damaged it, as I feel it has damaged Lindsay's character. But it hasn't exactly hurt Danny's popularity.

I don't know--there used to be a lot more chatter about Danny, and now the Danny thread is pretty dead. People used to discuss his looks, his emotional nature, his erratic actions... not so much anymore. I think it's probably a draw for some and for others it's made them lose interest in the character.

I was sickened to find out that (as admitted by Anna Belknap herself on the S4 DVD interviews), the extra dynamism to her character in early Season-4 was supposed to be because "she was happy in her relationship with Danny" - and then beyond angry when all those extra character-moments and efforts to form connection took a sharp about-face because things went south with Danny.

That's the kind of surface stuff I'm talking about--Anna never really digs deep. Lindsay was happy because of Danny--what about her relationship with others? Her standing at the lab? Was she at all concerned about what Danny had gone through in "Snow Day"? What about the conclusion of that trial? Anna doesn't really put a lot of thought into her performances.

Especially in light of this new regular they're adding to the NY cast, I really think it's Angell's lack of substance that made her expendable. Had Angell's character been salvageable and therefore interesting, they probably would've held off on adding a new regular, even negotiated into keeping EV on as a recurring character, if it was really budget that was the problem.

I think it's the same problem they had keeping Yelina Salas and Sofia Curtis on their respective shows. The CSI shows don't really have room for two regular detectives on their respective shows. Bummer that it's always the women who are cut, though Brass and Tripp and Flack are more interesting than their female counterparts (though I did love Sofia Curtis!). I think Angell died to give Flack angst mostly.

I don't exactly class the "Right Next Door" monologue as a shining moment for either Lindsay or Anna's acting - but did it make me believe that Lindsay was hurt and lashing out? Yeah, it did, and I think it was supposed to..so, good enough for me. She pulled it off.

Better than most other stuff she does, yes, though I still felt like I was watching an actress read a monologue rather than a hurt woman chewing out the guy she thought was her boyfriend.

It's the crying from "Silent Night" that makes me wince, usually.

That was painfully awful.

Belknap's performance in "Stealing Home" really stood out to me (although Hawkes and the threesome storyline came in a close second!) and to me, it seemed like it would've been a challenge to act that out. Getting so obssessed with a case for those personal reasons, while trying to keep it together to keep anyone from finding out why you're so obssessed with said case. And I even half got the feeling that Lindsay herself didn't really understand why needing to know "why" was so important to her. Belknap seemed to grasp that, and for me the emotions came through - but I'm not sure how much of Lindsay's fragmented, inconsistent performances can be put down to Belknap's acting, as opposed to the way Lindsay was written.

I agree with the first part for sure--"Stealing Home" is definitely her best performance on the show IMO. But I think if Anna had made an attempt to make that the core of her character, to really develop her from that rather than change as soon as the next episode came along, I think we might have had a very interesting character in Lindsay. But that's what I'm talking about when it comes to lack of depth--she reacts to each individual script like she's playing a new character rather than figuring out who Lindsay is and what she's like and carrying that through. There's no depth there.

This is gonna be way longer than one post. :lol: ETA: Yep, two.

 

[Maya316]

Yes, exactly--that's exactly how I feel about her. I feel like she was handed a decently interesting and somewhat layered character when she started--the same way all the other actors were. Yes, I realize there's dissonance in playing someone who is supposed to be eager and upbeat and also haunted by a tragedy... but that's acting. That's real life. Upbeat people go through terrible things, too, and it doesn't necessarily make them bitter or one thing one day and another the next. I think she got an interesting character to start with--someone who has channeled her pain and tragedy into something positive--and played her with little to no depth. There was no consistency from week to week, and that's not all on the writers by any means. Lindsay needed to have a core personality no matter what the lines said--and Belknap never gave her that. Danny's done things against or even out of character in some scripts, but even if it felt off, I always believed it was Danny doing it because Carmine has really defined him as a person. Anna has never done that for Lindsay.

I know this was for Elwood21, but it caught my attention so I really wanted to try responding to it :lol:. Upbeat people in real life can make it through traumatic events without becoming bitter, yes - but bitterness is a fairly common response to trauma. Especially when it's "bloody" trauma (even without the story being fleshed out, it was probably safe to assume from the first that someone close to Lindsay was violently murdered). And especially when that trauma is witnessed at an early age. Most of this is just plain statistics. It's kind of being assumed here (correct me if I'm wrong) that Lindsay was handed off to Belknap already decently layered as a bubbly, warm country-girl who was also withdrawn and haunted from her past. But I think half the reason that's being assumed is because Belknap was playing the character as moody/haunted from the beginning. I'm not so sure, though, that that haunted-ness originally came with the territory. I realize I'm going to come off as the most obsessive NY fan for even knowing this o), but if you go through almost every episode of S2, there is not one line of Lindsay's that's meant to indicate that she's haunted, or even slightly affected by her past. Not until you get toward the end of S2. When she wasn't flirting with Danny, her dialogue was all about cases or filler geeky/country-girl/new-to-the-city stuff. From a purely-on-the-page standpoint, it would be fine if Lindsay's character was just dissonant and contradictory - at least that would indicate the writers had actually considered Lindsay's "bloody past" and thought about how it might affect her character in day-to-day (or episode-to-episode) life. That would've indicated that she was meant to be rounded out. But it's things like the writing in S2 that make me think it was never about her "bloody" past at all, at least not until it became convenient for them.

That makes me think Belknap layered the character, using common (or at least assumed) knowledge of how tragedy might affect upbeat people. I, of course, like what she's done with the character so I can't really be the fairest judge of whether she's done less with more or more with less. I have no idea if another actress would've picked up on the fact that Lindsay should be haunted by her past, even if the writers didn't seem to. Maybe they would've. Belknap is by no means the greatest actress I've ever seen onscreen, but for me she's done a lot to make Lindsay even halfway believable as a character. And well, I see consistency. The aloofness is consistent enough. I completely disagree that it has to be a likable trait that gives Lindsay depth or consistency. Sara Sidle's bitchiness was the most consistent trait she had, and it still (imo) made her well-rounded and likable.

Oh, I disagree completely here--I think a warmer actress would have shown hurt rather than just anger and brittleness.

Shown hurt where? That's the thing - before "All Access" there was nothing to indicate that Lindsay should be depicted as hurt, or bitter or angry or anything other than perky and tough. I don't disagree that a warmer actress could probably have depicted Lindsay as being hurt, but they'd've had to assume that Lindsay was supposed to be depicted that way, first. If they hadn't and she'd been played as genuinely warm and cheerful, there would've been no indication that this girl was supposed to have a problem.

I think that was a direct reference to the bloody secret. While I don't think the bloody secret was well-defined from the first, it was there right from the beginning--it's always been in the character's bio, and Anna knew about it from the start.

She did know about it from the start, and that's why I think Lindsay was portrayed the way she has been from the start, really. I don't think the writers told Belknap anything more about Lindsay's depth beyond "she has a bloody secret" - mostly because they didn't seem to think there was much more depth to her beyond the bubbliness.

I think part of what I struggle with when talking about Anna's weaknesses as an actress is that I don't know why I should cut an actress on a hit television show any slack. I cannot believe that Anna walked in as a series regular and was given less material to work with than AJ Buckley, who was recurring in a bit part... and yet AJ has never fumbled a line or portrayed anything unrealistically. Same with Robert Joy. Same with Carmine or Hill or Eddie. And I don't think that what she was handed was all that more difficult than what Carmine was--he's supposed to be this wise-cracking tough Italian-American who also is insecure and damaged and needy. Those two descriptions are kind of at odds with each other, but Carmine sort of molded that to make the character real. I doubt Danny is quite as tough as he was originally intended to be, and probably is a little more emotional, but he works as a character because the writers and Carmine made him real. I think the writers tried to do the same with Lindsay--giving her storylines like "Stealing Home" but Anna didn't really follow suit.

I don't quite see the same inconsistencies in who Danny is supposed to be - is tough, wisecracking, streetwise Italian-American whose also vulnerable and insecure really any more of a contradiction than the insecure schoolyard bully? (Not that Danny's a bully.) It's not just about the inconsistencies or contradiction. Every character has them - hell, I'm looking at Flack here when I say this, and I never thought I'd have to apply the rule to him. The thing about Danny's contradictions is that they're scripted. They were originally meant to be a part of the character. The writers wrote Danny as tough and yet vulnerable, and for the most part consider how all those facets of his personality will affect his day-to-day life. Carmine, of course, plays a huge role in selling Danny despite the inconsistencies, but the writing doesn't exactly hurt. With Lindsay, it really seemed like (in S2 and beyond) every moment she'd been written as haunted or at all layered was inspired by what the writers picked up from Belknap's portrayal of the character; and it worked in both "All Access" (imo) and "Stealing Home". It's what they did with AJ's performance too, when Adam's endearing nervousness started to become scripted canon. But we can't exactly ignore that Adam never had a constricting role that he'd already been shoved into, whereas Lindsay did. That's where I cut Anna Belknap some slack: if Lindsay as a character were played to full, realistic, damaged potential, I really don't think DL would've been possible - whether it were Anna acting the part of Lindsay, or someone else. And it's clear which is the more important factor.

Not to be cynical, but I think that was just another DL moment, because Lindsay's immediate reaction wasn't to smile or make a joke about Hawkes calling her that, but to lament that she hasn't heard that in a while... clearly a reference to Danny.

You're probably right :shifty:. But it still says something to me that they chose Hawkes to drop that line, rather than Stella or Flack or even Adam. None of them seem to be as close to Lindsay as Hawkes is.

Why would they bring it up in the description and not have her confront it? That's just bad storytelling. The minute it showed up in that description (from the minute the character was brought on the show basically), it was just a matter of time, in the same way that Danny's "Tanglewood" connections were going to be explored at some point as soon as they were brought up. That stuff can't be left dangling--it has to be paid off once it's introduced.

Well, it's just the basics of storytelling, really. Lindsay is a character in an ongoing television series - if they'd meant her to be at all interesting from the beginning, any writer would've known to keep the storyline open. In books, they don't resolve character arcs in the first two or three chapters; they wait until the end of the book is nearing. Tanglewood is actually what I had in mind when I mentioned how few CSI characters have gained closure from their stories - the Tanglewood one was left open-ended. Louie being nearly killed wasn't meant to be seen as closure, I don't think. Even if Sonny Sassone was sent to jail - and knowing how easily he seems to slip out of being convicted, they certainly left that possibility open-ended - there were more Tanglewood boys than just him. They could come back to it whenever, if ever, they want to. Mac has yet to gain closure from Claire's death; Elwood21 mentioned how it's that very thing which has been giving Mac his defining character arc for almost all of these past seasons. On CSI, Warrick Brown's gambling problem was a storyline left open-ended for years on end, as was Sara Sidle's path of self-destruction. As was Gil Grissom's loss of hearing. There's a different between exploring a storyline, and giving it closure.

In "Stealing Home", the writers were, I think, tentatively exploring Lindsay's storyline. It came off great. In Season 3 they were closing it. Naturally, it came off unrealistically. Lindsay's storyline, if Katum had remained free, could have defined Lindsay's drive to remain a cop and gone a long way to explaining a lot about Lindsay's character; her fear of uncertainty/not being in control. Even her possible fear that the next person she became close to would also be gunned down while doing something as ordinary as eating pie in a cafe (the simple "solution"? Don't get close to anyone - and that was Lindsay to a tee). But Katum being caught and convicted was basically the only way Lindsay could ever get closure. Given that the storyline had barely been explored, and Lindsay certainly hadn't grown from its brief exploration (if anything, "Stealing Home" probably just left her more unbalanced), it seemed unrealistic to close the storyline without a massive breakdown.

But why would they wait until Anna is pregnant and out of the picture to explore a major storyline for her character? I think the plan was to delve into her dark secret all along in season three, and then Anna got pregnant. They didn't technically have to write her out for any episodes for her to go testify at the trial since we saw it on screen.

My guess? They didn't see it as a major storyline for her character - at least, not one that was worth sacrificing DL for. I do think the plan was to delve into her dark-secret all along; that was hinted at in "Stealing Home". But they didn't delve into it, they gave it as much closure as they could. I agree that Anna Belknap's pregnancy hugely affected the way the storyline was played out, but I think if it had been at all about exploring Lindsay's character, they would've actually delved into her breakdown. I don't mean little crying scenes in the morgue that she gets over, I mean something that actually indicated the writers recognized how traumatic the storyline should have been. Something like the way Calleigh left ballistics when that Hagen guy shot himself; they should've made Lindsay quit, even temporarily. Or hell, she should've been fired temporarily (like Ryan on Miami), either after Oedipus Hex or Silent Night. If they'd meant it to come off significantly as a major, half-realistic storyline, then hooking up with Danny should've been the last thing on her mind for at least a few months after the trial, never mind a few seconds after Daniel Katum was convicted. The fact that it was on her mind indicates the writers never meant for her to be suffering any after-effects; and that's not strength, imo, that's just unrealistic. But if they'd portrayed it that realistically, then there would've been no way DL could've believably resumed so quickly after the trial - that's what makes me think DL was really the important factor. I get the feeling that Belknap was told that Lindsay was supposed to be "heavily traumatized, but mostly okay".

Not everyone who has something traumatic happen to them has a breakdown. I think Anna chose to play her in a brittle way, and I think that was a mistake given the character's bio--the tragedy is what drove her to become a CSI. The character's motivations came from an inner strength, which I think is possible and realistic, but Anna started playing her as such a whiny wuss towards the end of season two. I saw a realistic Lindsay I could have liked in "Stealing Home," but she never really matched that performance again.

No, not everyone, but I think we have to consider Lindsay's past in itself. Witnessing the murder of someone you don't (or do) know is traumatic. School shootings are traumatic, whether or not you know the people injured/killed. Those kinds of cases have led to breakdowns before, although you're right, it's possible to overcome and remain strong in spite of the trauma. Lindsay's case, on the other hand, could easily have come from a horror movie. The only ones in a diner at night, you get up to go to the bathroom for literally five seconds, and in that time four of your fourteen-year-old friends (I think it's safe to say they were close friends) are shot to death? And the only reason she wasn't among them was pure luck? I know I've said it before, but the story itself is so over-the-top, it's borderline unrealistic. It certainly would have been more so if Lindsay came out of it completely untouched (like, I think, her character was originally written). However, had the past stayed in the past - like I think it was originally intended to do, once they'd fleshed it out - it could have been handled as well as it was in "Stealing Home". Something that affected Lindsay deeply, but something she just had to live with, and maybe slowly get over. That's realistic. Having it all bubble back to the surface and Lindsay dealing with it with barely a care? That was ridiculous. I really think there's a reason Lindsay hasn't really matched that performance in Stealing Home ever since (well, imo, at least not when it comes to dealing with her past).

See, for me it says the writers are responding to a young demographic that loves the pairing--trying to draw in the Twilight crowd. The fact that all of her storylines are D/L related tells me that's the only draw for the character.

But I don't think the fact that the writers may just be providing fanservice to the Twilight crowd would make those scenes any less difficult to act; and if they felt Anna were truly bad at it, they probably wouldn't write so many of those scenes for her. They really, really don't need the extra reason to steal screentime and storylines away from the other characters.

I still have to say Lindsay isn't relegated to DL just because it's her only draw - she's relegated there because that's her original purpose for being on the show. We can't really say that it's the only draw for the character. You mentioned they were initially planning to split DL up in Season 5, and something must've made them think this wouldn't completely destroy Lindsay's popularity or purpose on the show. Furthermore, I've seen DL fans who are equally loyal to Danny and Lindsay separately, and I've seen the fans who are rabidly loyal to Lindsay while unsympathetic to Danny. It's very hard to find good, non-DL Lindsay-character driven fanfiction online, but it's not entirely impossible. And I have yet to run across a DL fan who's more loyal to Danny than Lindsay, to be honest. I know she was written to be Danny's love interest, but these trends are a little inconsistent with the attention that would ordinarily be paid to a simple "love interest". A lot of people here say that Angell stood as a character on her own, but I have yet to find an Angell-character fanfic, or any fanfic where she wasn't being paired with either Flack or Adam (yeah, you saw that right). And I would think people would want to identify with Angell as much as Lindsay, since she was the one hooking up with Flack.

I don't think Grissom and Sara's romance was any less in the foreground than Danny and Lindsay's, but Petersen and Fox are far less flashy, as are their characters. And a much more realistic pairing IMO (though just as controversial in fandom!) because they did communicate (though their lack of physicality with each other did stand out).

True; I wasn't a fan of Grissom and Sara, but they were played out a little more realistically. However, it's probably the flashiness that I was directly referring to. Grissom and Sara's romance was just kind of there, but it didn't really seem to have many storylines attached to it until Jorja Fox was leaving the show. That's the difference with DL, I think. Of course, it's also why DL is more annoying, IMO, because I really don't care about the ups-and-downs of either relationship; and at least they didn't make us chart those ups and downs as much with Grissom/Sara.

She sounds bitter a lot. Whereas other characters are shocked, saddened, subdued, horrified... she just kind of has that one edge-of-anger emotion to roll out.

Oh yeah, I agree she has a lot of anger. I'm not sure it's not intentional - I mean, it certainly seemed fitting in "Live or Let Die", and I can easily believe she's still pissed about her friends dying young. But she sounded like she was on the verge of crying at one point during her "Sleight" testimony, and sounded horrified in "The Deep" when she and Mac were watching Danny and Hawkes on the screen.

 

[Maya316]

Bingo--you've pretty much nailed why I can't stand the character of Lindsay in one succinct paragraph. Maya and I have been having a great conversation in the "Damage" thread (which I need to get back to!!) about the character, and I have to say, she's opened my eyes to a lot in the character that I haven't thought about before. I'm slightly more sympathetic... but I keep coming back to this stuff, and those are things I can't stand about her, and that I see as being the most consistent.

LOL - oh gosh, thanks! I'm really learning a lot from the "Damage" thread too, the workout on Danny's and Flack's characters is awesome because there was a lot there I hadn't really considered.:lol:

It's harder to ignore her when she's actually giving birth to the baby. "Greater Good" really struck me as a true ensemble piece--I think almost everyone had something to do, because it was meant to emphasize the team as a family. "The Box" was about Danny and Lindsay--but really mostly about Danny.

True, though how necessary was Lindsay's "what am I going to be like as a mom" scene? I agree Greater Good was meant to be a family piece, but I don't think "The Box" was meant to be the Danny/Lindsay centrepiece. That would probably be "The Triangle". I really think "The Box" was supposed to be Danny's moment.

I think that's definitely true--it was Danny's big drama episode for the season. But at the same time, the fact that the spotlight was solely on him is telling in my book. Even without being able to convince us--or himself--that he's in love with Lindsay, he absolutely sells Danny's confusion and dawning excitement over the prospect of the baby.

He had to - it was the only chance he had all season, really, to sell those things - Danny's confusion, his excitement, etc. We got hints of them throughout the rest of the season, but it was never really laid out again the way it was in "The Box"; that's why I'm sure it wasn't supposed to be a shared moment with Lindsay, it was meant to tell us what Danny's thinking apart from her. It was the only truly-solid moment he had.

But how does that explain season four? It's not about the time but how it's used... and mostly she just does lab work.

Oh, I completely disagree :lol:. I know for you she faded into the background in S4, but to me she was a much stronger presence then than she was in S3, or in S5. And well, the "Right Next Door" spiel took place in Season 4, they were clearly giving her something to do - although I feel she stood even apart from that something-to-do.

Completely aside from speculation, we know she was confined to the lab in S3, and in S5 (to a lesser extent, but still). In S4 we saw her interrogating suspects in "Boo", "Commuted Sentences", "Buzzkill", "One Wedding and a Funeral", "Child's Play", "Personal Foul", I think "Happily Never After", "DOA for a Day"...um, okay I'm going to stop, but my point is basically she was more action-oriented in the seasons she's not pregnant, than the seasons where she is.

I'm still not convinced of that because of several reasons: she came with the whole lightening up of the show in general, she was given a dark secret (which didn't even really involved Danny until the end) and the writers were going to move away from the romance in season five until Anna got pregnant. I think D/L became the crutch they relied on heavily once it became clear Anna's acting was pretty weak.

She was given a dark secret that didn't involve Danny - until they needed to use it to explain why DL would be dropped for a few months. I agree the dark secret itself wasn't ever supposed to involve Danny, but the way it was played out? Said nothing except that they wanted the storyline done with quickly, so Lindsay could get back to hooking up with Danny. But if anything, the fact that they were about to move away from DL in season 5 really, really tells me they were seeing more potential in Lindsay. If they were already seeing Anna's acting as weak outside of DL, why on earth would they have been considering moving away from DL in Season 5? Not just moving away from it, but giving Lindsay something to do other than Danny?

But why don't they think so? That's what I wonder about. Personally, I think she kind of fades into the background without DL. She's often uninteresting--to me at least--and sometimes downright annoying, though she's been a lot less annoying since she stopped storming out of crime scenes.

I think it's because of that "Twilighters" demographic, to be honest. DL was contrived for the purpose of drawing that crowd, and Lindsay was contrived and brought in for Danny. It's clearly working, and so I really think that's why TPTB refuse to let go of it, or changing anything that might directly affect it. I'm not sure it has much to do with Belknap or Lindsay as a character at all - truthfully, they don't seem to have actually paid much attention or put much work into her outside of DL.

See, I think it could have been totally believable, had it been played differently. Here you have this strong woman who has tried to make peace with and overcome her past--and suddenly it's come right to the surface as these things sometimes do in life. Instead we got shrill and brittle and angry. I don't think Anna ever really properly conveyed the strength Lindsay was supposed to have to have survived that tragedy and gone on to try to prevent it/bring similar criminals to justice.

It would have been believable if they'd introduced the trial storyline in a few years or so - after we'd actually seen Lindsay struggle to make peace with and overcome her past. I think Stealing Home was meant to indicate just how much Lindsay hadn't dealt with her past at all, and that's why it came off so believably to me. In large part because of the way her damage had already been set up in prior episodes. And I'm not seeing how any actress could've pulled off "Stealing Home" successfully, then also pulled off the Season 3 storyline just as successfully. The two were almost directly contradicting - yeah, Lindsay is probably meant to be stronger, but in Stealing Home it became obvious that simply preventing further crimes and bringing the criminal to justice wasn't enough for her. She told Mac as much herself. We're supposed to believe that in less than a few months time, it would suddenly become enough for her, enough so that she could just look her friends' killer in the face and not care about the "why", just so long as he went to jail? Without a single strong indication of damage? (I agree Anna's performance didn't bring much emotion to the fore in that trial and leading up to it, but a large part of it was just bad writing. Why the focus suddenly shifted to mothers and dead teenage girls, rather than needing to find out why Daniel Katum chose her friends, I don't know.) We're supposed to believe that mere moments after Katum was convicted, she'd be all gung-ho about hooking up with a guy who has the same first name as that killer? I'm not buying it. I've said this before too, but Reese Witherspoon could've acted the part, and I likely wouldn't have bought it then, either.

That's the kind of surface stuff I'm talking about--Anna never really digs deep. Lindsay was happy because of Danny--what about her relationship with others? Her standing at the lab? Was she at all concerned about what Danny had gone through in "Snow Day"? What about the conclusion of that trial? Anna doesn't really put a lot of thought into her performances.

What relationship with others? I think she tentatively started developing closer bonds with the others in early S4, and that side-effect of her happiness is a large part of what had me thinking Lindsay seemed almost dangerously dependent on Danny (or anyone), and on just knowing for "a fact" that he cared, before she could make the effort to reach out. I'm mad at the core-cause of her reaching out, but I liked the effects...however, I can't really say whether it was intentionally handled the way I see it, or if I'm just reading too much into Anna's performance for no reason. For the record, though, it wasn't just that Lindsay was happy, it was the way the other characters were responding to said happiness.

I agree with the first part for sure--"Stealing Home" is definitely her best performance on the show IMO. But I think if Anna had made an attempt to make that the core of her character, to really develop her from that rather than change as soon as the next episode came along, I think we might have had a very interesting character in Lindsay. But that's what I'm talking about when it comes to lack of depth--she reacts to each individual script like she's playing a new character rather than figuring out who Lindsay is and what she's like and carrying that through. There's no depth there.

Did she change in the next episode? She seemed just as withdrawn and driven in "Heroes", even before they discovered that the skeleton was Aiden. But being fair, I think if the show had continued Lindsay's storyline in the same vein as they handled "Stealing Home", we completely would have seen that performance become the core of Lindsay's character. A great deal of Lindsay's effectiveness in Stealing Home, imo, came from the way her character had been set up in prior episodes. It just made perfect sense to me that she'd be all on edge and never really telling anyone why; or that, rather than talking out the problem with a coworker the way Stella or Danny or even Hawkes would have (the way Mac actually tried to make her do), she'd go to the killer and almost try to bully the answer out of him. I think the backstory had potential to explain both Lindsay's aloofness and the reason she was a cop at all.

Let's see if this fits into one post... ETA: Gah, darn! Sorry for the essay-like replies :lol::alienblush:

 

[Elwood21]

arright arright I gives up y'all. I've edited out 5000 characters from this post and I'm still over :lol:. uh, double post coming and I'll still hafta come back :lol: apologies for nonkosher postage...

lolz, undercover ya made me laugh

Originally Posted by Maya316
See, I can't just cross off Carmine's stronger presence in "The Box" as the producers feeling that Carmine was the only one strong enough to make DL even halfway credible. Especially since they had fairly-equal screentime in "Greater Good", which I'd think was at least as important as "The Box" to carry off successfully. No, I don't think Belknap would've done half so well had they turned the focus on her.... He needed a chance to "shine" character-wise as much as any other character did, and the angst is where Carmine gives his best performances.

I wasn't particularly enamoured with Greater Good as an episode either :lol: My poor wee Adam. :lol: The best of the scene with Stella was "I'm losing it, aren't I" and Stella's expression and minimally worded response. Listening. Key. I wasn't terribly impressed with the Box, or even Carmine. But I am suggesting the fact it was written to feature him is significant. I think he is a more popular character on the show and that the writers blatantly used him to sell the storyline.

I don't think Danny or Carmine 'needed a chance to shine.' It's not like he otherwise doesn't. He shines in his interaction with the others, he shines in his scenes with Flack when they get to trade barbs and turn them on a suspect, eg.

Was the Box really the only time he got to be wangsty? I actually like Danny better when he's not wangsty, and he did get other scenes that I thought he was good in. As much as the writing in the Party's Over annoyed me, I liked the scene between Stella and Danny, for example. Wasn't he given ample opportunity to try everyone's patience in Communication Breakdown with the names? Wanking more than wangsting there perhaps. :lol: Didn't he get a mini wangst in Green Piece with Mac, not to mention his re-proposal to Lindsay? How about staring in the mirror and lying over the phone post-shootout in Point of No Return? Kinda wangsty sorta? I know I know, the Box was the biggest wangst, if nothing else.

A script like the Box would be unusual in any season in any franchise for the focus it gave one character, both in screentime and reference, and the format it took in it's storytelling. It was a very curious choice that does bear looking at in how the writers went about trying to sell the viewers on a new direction not just for the characters but inevitably for the show. And in just about every respect, Lindsay took a back seat to it's introduction.

Btw, if you're agreeing that AB 'wouldn't have done so well had the focus been turned on her,' isn't it possible the producers felt the same...?

It could also be that being pregnant, she didn't have much screentime? .... It really doesn't seem like the producers are learning some sort of lesson about her emotive acting; except that it's probably best when not put in unrealistic situations (*cough*dark-secret*cough*).

Ummm, isn't an actor's job to sell every situation? Not just the 'realistic' ones?

My point exactly about AB's pregnancies is that they did probably play a part in the kind of physical work that was asked of her and her availability to the show. I think in S3 that they didn't just shuffle Lindsay blithely aside but created a great platform as a pretense to accomodate Anna's abscence. They weren't obliged to write her up anything big at all but they did. S5 I think the decision to incorporate the pregnancy in S5 meant that her participation and demands on her could be managed differently, ...and the kinds of stories too. Hmmm. S3 Dark Secret. S4 Monologue of Doom. S5 DLL. Those are her high points?

In Silent Night, Marlee Matlin is what I remember most. As for Lindsay drama, I think it's another example of material that could have been moving, but I instead focused on Stella, whom I think elevated those encounters. I didn't feel for Lindsay. Poor Muffin Monroe, her behaviour in the run up to the grand revelation was totally excused now that we understood what was gnawing at her so relentlessly. I think Melina really did well in those scenes that she had dealing with and deciphering Lindsay's emotional state.

True, DL isn't much with the kissing, but that just means it's all about the annoying googly-eyes and cheesy grins and snuck glances, not to mention the way they say the lines ....but to me it's never really been Anna who's struggled with portraying DL no matter what the situation. Although yes, I totally agree that DL has been fragmented, contrived, inconsistent, disengaging, and I could easily go on.

:lol: Agree with the last bit but again beg to differ about the first. Most of DL has been about negotiation. I think googly eyes and flirtation etc. has contributed proportionately less to the volume of their screentime than the dramallama resulting from the pairing. I do agree that Carmine is equally culpable in DL being unconvincing. That's precisely where that unintended complexity and filling in the blanks comes into play. I think Anna stands out because, outside of S3, Lindsay's personal moments have tied back into DL, whereas Danny still gets moments outside it, and does enough with them to keep me interested in watching him. His encounter with Elgers this season is one example.

I agree that DL seems to be a defining element of Lindsay, but I think it has more to do with the purpose she was brought onto the show for, than anything else. She was brought onto the show to be paired with Danny. That's it. She's able to stand on her own, IMO, because she does in the episodes where she doesn't interact with Danny - but the writers don't seem to think so as much. ....if she was basically brought onto CSI:NY to play Danny's love interest, she's doing her job. Heck, IMO, I really think she's doing better than that, because for me it's Anna who gives Lindsay any truly defining, emotional character traits that give her character any potential.

I'm having trouble understanding here. Lindsay stands on her own somehow because of Anna who's wonderful but is stifled because the writers never thought their character stood alone and only ever gave her material relating DL? Weren't we just discussing Silent Night, for example? Didn't she also have the whole of S2 untethered?

I don't think S2 was all about DL. Why would they give her a whole season on her own if she was simply to be a love interest? Really Extended Foreplay? Mac and Peyton's first scene was in his bed fer chrissakes, FA were smooching outta the blu after one pretty powerful game busted out :lol: DL were so carefully nurtured? Color me doubtful Why bother with a detailed backstory at all? Why would she have been a Regular Main Character in the opening credits when every other love interest has been a recurring character?

I think Lindsay was brought in to fill in a slot open because Vanessa Ferlito's departure left them short a CSI character on a CSI show. I think she was part of the make-over the show got post S1. I think Lindsay was supposed to be a peppy, resilient, cute country girl wot come to the big city to kick some criminal ass. I think S2 gave her great opportunity to carve a niche as a stand alone character without solely being a function of romance. I think a flirtation doesn't hafta turn into a romance. I think S3 had it foisted on the show for cynical reasons, and she still had a chance to pull something off with the Dark Secret. I don't think NY pulled the canon romance off in the same way that Vegas did - and I wasn't a huge GSR fan or anything - but I do think that Sara and Grissom's drawn out nudging around the issue while dealing with the Job made their journey far more interesting to watch. I think I read that Sara was originally written way back when as a love interest, but it was shelved, and Sara was a full character in her own right before, and after it happened. I think S2 was as good as it got for Lindsay. Unless ya like the whole DL thing of course.

As for potential. I refer again to AJ and Robert. They created potential for their characters, made moments. I don't get that from Anna. Lindsay feels literal to the page somehow.

I have trouble seeing the season-3 storyline as this great opportunity for Lindsay's character, because it really just seemed to emphasize my point about Lindsay and DL. It showed how very little thought the writers had put into Lindsay's character.

...eh, wha? really?? :lol: The writers are inconsiderate for giving her a deep personal history that played out over the course of several episodes?

I think people have often tried to rationalize the state of Lindsay's development or lack thereof by saying she hadn't had the same opportunities or great scenes written for her. That's why I point to S3, because there was the Dark Secret story line, it was drawn out over several episodes where we could really have been made to feel and wonder for Lindsay instead of be annoyed by her behaviour. Less with more case in point. The story was about Lindsay alone, had little to do with DL, had everything to do with Lindsay battling some of her own personal demons. I think an actor would relish an opportunity for material like that, not feel dismissed by it. I'd hardly believe Anna felt that way. She had a chance to take something and really run with it.

The backstory had potential, but I completely agree it was poorly realized. I don't think Lindsay was ever supposed to confront her past - and why should she have to? There are few, if any other characters on the CSI shows (that I know of) who've confronted their pasts like this, because that just closes the storyline. Not even Mac seems to have fully gotten closure on Claire's death. Half the effectiveness of Lindsay's backstory was in the randomness of Daniel Katum's crime and the fact that he got away, and we saw this come to the fore in "Stealing Home".

I watched S2 before S3 and so saw Stealing Home without knowing what Lindsay's Dark Sekrit was, and it read fine without her character being informed specifically by Katum. I think 'why' is a question anyone and everyone can struggle with.

I think the question wasn't just asking the motive behind the guy killing the young woman but choosing her, a girl from Montana, and someone that could but for the grace of yada been Lindsay in another life.

Confronting one's past does not equate with immediate and unquestionably successful closure. It would still be perfectly valid for Lindsay to be colored by those experiences, especially now as a parent and looking at things from yet another angle. I didn't hear any doors closing.

It's unbelievable that Lindsay would even want to become a cop after this, IMO, even if she were able to get over the massive survivor's guilt and the loss of her friends. Justice and law enforcement should realistically be the last things she believes in.... It was at least as contrived as anything DL has ever come up with, and maybe even harder to act - there was nothing realistic in any of Lindsay's reactions to having to confront her past, and no way to make such reactions believable.

People are funny and do the damndest things within their own rationales. Part of 'every character operates under a banner they believe in.' Who's to say that becoming a cop wasn't somehow driven by those events?

You're saying the pretense of the writing behind the character is so ridiculous that it makes it impossible to play believably, that Anna should be excused or lauded in the face of an insurmountable task? Every actor wants a backstory for their character, and if one isn't written for them then they make one up. And every tidbit that's tossed their way interim gets fed into that to modify it and make it work for their performances. Lindsay had a great one drawn up for her. It's an actor's job to find truths, it's an actor's job to be believable, to find something to connect with, to make you want to watch them. I honestly wasn't bothered by the fact that she became a CSI after a childhood trauma like that. There are far more absurd things on television. That didn't take me out of the show. Mind you I encounter a carnival of personalities daily. My boxes are rarely square :lol: Truth really can be a great deal stranger than fiction, and the logic people conventionally impose to filter.

I think confronting is not the same as resolving, and that one doesn't have to result in the other. I think what the writers did was open up her past and reveal more about this mysterious superwoman from Montana. I think it was carefully laid out. I'm getting confused about what the point is here. Yes Anna was pregnant and the trial was a pretense to accomodate her haitus. It was also done in a way to be what should have been a great story, pithy stuff, a personal history dipped into in a way that a lot of characters on the show still haven't had explored to that degree. And this somehow means that little thought was put into Lindsay's character? And that there was no way to play it as 'real?' My synapses are aching a tad here :lol:

There is apparently also an encouraged dialogue between the writers and the actors. With the multi-ep lead in, Anna had to know that was being set up for her character, and if she had really grave conflicting concerns, probably had opportunity to voice them before they hit filming. Worst case, if she was playing counter to her intuition, was being directed in a way that wasn't in accordance to her instinct, was following direction and each take is getting worse and worse and worse, then the direction's probably bad. I'd doubt it got to that point on game day though. I doubt that explains four seasons.

(And if the trial stuff was even harder to act than anything DL ever came up with, doesn't that perhaps kinda go toward supporting my supposition that romance is indeed not harder to do than anything else? )

True; I'm wary of S6, but I'm interested to see what they're going to do with her character. I agree about Lindsay's popularity benefitting from DL, but that could be turned on Danny, too. .... it hasn't exactly hurt Danny's popularity.

I don't think Danny's has skyrocketed because of DL, I think DL is partly a product of his. That Idea of Romance for many, a vicarious exploration. Speaking for myself, DL has hurt Danny's popularity. I wanna shake him by the collar. Vigorously. :lol: He's like the buddy who knocks on yer door at 4am for a beer on the balcony to talk about how the sky fell down that day and doesn't realize ya mighta been sleeping. Every time. It wears thin till it pokes out the other side in an outright absurdity. Ya wanna throttle him buuuuut ya don't mind the stories That's why El's Kitchen is open 24/7 fer all comers I don't think Danny's popularity is as dependent on DL as Lindsay's might be.

I completely feel your frustration with S5.... I was sickened to find out that (as admitted by Anna Belknap herself on the S4 DVD interviews), the extra dynamism to her character in early Season-4 was supposed to be because "she was happy in her relationship with Danny" - and then beyond angry when all those extra character-moments and efforts to form connection took a sharp about-face because things went south with Danny. Don't even get me started on S5! I only just found a few weeks ago that the producers were going to take Danny and Lindsay in separate, independent storylines before Anna Belknap got pregnant.

I think the day someone posted a TV Guide article that revealed the 'Organic' U-Turn I wrote a rather longwinded scenario out of complete, abject frustration :lol: Nearly dropkicked my computer.

You say Lindsay was supposed to be extra dynamic in S4?? I never woulda guessed from AB's performances alone. (S4 dvds never touched mah monies :lol: ). Curious statement that, especially as DL seemed so vague, and Danny indifferent at best.

Question for ya. Were you upset they had planned to take D&L in separate directions? Or that they never did after AB's pregnancy was written into the show?

I completely, completely agree on Lindsay's Mary-Sue-dom, though . She really was written as little else. Her backstory should give her more depth. Still does a little, imo, and would more, if they hadn't closed the storyline in Season 3.

I think Anna's still free to mine from that backstory drama for Lindsay. I don't think Stella should be shut from drawing on her childhood experiences after Grounds, I don't think Mac can't continue to miss and mourn the loss of Claire, or reference Beiruit, eg. Why should they. A backstory is a collection of encounters that shaped who you are and your outlook, even as that keeps evolving, looking forward and back.

- ...and breaking here to go onto double posting I been staring at this damned post for so long I have no idea if it'll make any sense. Anyhoo. :lol:

 

[Elwood21]

oh noes!!! simultaneous postage :lol: and I'm behind! :lol: :lol: my my.

alright, gonna try to plow thru with part II of mine just to catch up and then, well, uh, catch up even more? :lol: I doubt I'll even get to Top's in this post, let alone Maya's follow up. That whole sleep and coffee thing again. :lol:

But I also don't really believe she (Angell) just "happened" to be killed off before she could become well-rounded. It's hard to discuss May-Sue-ness, but there've only been three Mary-Sue-like characters on this show (Angell, Peyton, Lindsay); and it's the only one with actual flaws that's still standing. Even Sofia Curtis was briefly made a regular before she was written out of Vegas, and lasted four seasons on the show. Something about her made her interesting enough. Especially in light of this new regular they're adding to the NY cast, I really think it's Angell's lack of substance that made her expendable. Had Angell's character been salvageable and therefore interesting, they probably would've held off on adding a new regular, even negotiated into keeping EV on as a recurring character, if it was really budget that was the problem.

I think Sophia on Vegas was great. Miami's not a show I know well. It is beautifully shot and put together though. I'm guessing that Yelina somehow has a deep connection with the mighty H? That might have tendencies to override everything else? :lol:

I think the show opportunistically used Angell in killing her off. I don't think she was killed off so that they didn't hafta develop her :lol:. I'm saying we never got to see what more mighta been planned for her character before that decision was made. I think she was a considered trade off more than purely expendable; killing her cost no red tape, came at an opportune time when they hadda make cuts, capitalized on FA, boosted ratings, and hopefully will serve Flack in the aftermath. In a game of network chess it was a decent move.

EV lasted three seasons as a recurring, and imo woulda made a good regular character had she been added like Sophia was to Vegas. No other recurring made as many appearances as her. Speaks to some merit, I would hope.

As for your trio of Mary Sues, it's the only Regular Canon Character who's still standing. Ya know. The one wot has a multi-year contract??

I think Angell's character was totally 'salvageable,' I don't think that was the issue at all . I think it was laregly about $$$ and timing. I also think that even in an idealized budget world, having two Regular full time Homicide Detectives isn't integral for the show.

I think adding a new CSI in S6 wouldn't have stood out as an issue in quite the same without the "they let me go for budget reasons" story with EV. I think that budget issues have validity as an argument. Look at the bloodbaths that happened across the networks in the past few years. Nobody was untouched. Look at the shows that got dropped and what got picked up. Look at CBS Corp's quarterly statements, especially the first of this year. At the shifts their entertainment divisions made, at companies bottomed out who weren't buying ads, at the cuts made across the board, the shows that got cut outright, the cuts every show was asked to make, and the timing of when the announcements were made. As for the franchise, I don't think CSIMiami's filming any stuff in Miami this season. I dunno about the others. Second quarter comes in and maybe corporations aren't panicking in quite the same way anymore, maybe things are levelling, who knows. I'd wondered if the new character was gonna be in every ep and I don't think she is. Who knows what kind of deal she'll rate either. Contingent on a few things is my guess.

I think there were other things going on too, in terms of looking for ways to sketch out S6 and what they'd need. But I think Angell was valuable enough to have an impact on viewers, and was not simply a red shirt crew member. I think there's been a substantial outcry from losing Angell. Moreso than a Jessop, yes? She certainly had generated enough 'interest' and 'substance' after three years for that.

(I'd have been even happier if it had been Lindsay's 'interest' and 'substance' riding into the sunset instead. )

I'm not sure how much of Lindsay's fragmented, inconsistent performances can be put down to Belknap's acting, as opposed to the way Lindsay was written. It often seems like she was written in one, very-unrealistic, idealized way; Anna Belknap tried to take her character in a different, more realistic direction; the writers struggled to catch up while still keeping Lindsay within the bounds of her "purpose" on the show (DL), and the result is a seamless, inconsistent character with very Mary-Sue-like tendencies. Although I do agree about her bitchiness with suspects! It's a part of why I like her - she's certainly not the first CSI to be bitchy with suspects - but it does say a lot about her as a character/person.

Lindsay's famously bitchy to more than just suspects :lol: and seamless she certainly ain't.

I do agree and think Stealing Home was a good ep for Lindsay. Probably as as good as she's ever been on the show.

I can't buy into your position that Anna's somehow battling constantly with the writers with regards to her character and that everything is their fault and she's fabulous to have managed as much as she has. Not over five years and a revolving door of directors, and possibly writers too. I doubt the showrunner and Anna are armwrestling two outta three. :lol: From what's been indicated it's a pretty decent and happy set, and a welcome interaction between the writers and the cast where characters are concerned.

It's your job as an actor to make what you're given work. How about Carmine being the 'utility guy?' Five years and a myriad of directors and writers later, who's the most constant figure in the middle here? Can Anna really be absolved of any responsibility in what doesn't work and only credited in what does?

I wish I could see or discern moments where it feels like Anna's injected something into the character that wasn't scripted for her, some place where she elevated what might seem a mundane moment into a better one.

With Lindsay I see opportunities in the writing that weren't brought to life, things that didn't move me. The rest of the cast generally turn in performances that lead me to look at their characters or question them in the best way. I don't always like the behaviour but I believe them, and I want to watch them. Anna's performances lead me to question her performances as much as Lindsay's behaviour, and I'm really no longer interested in watching. :lol:

It's a good thing my coffee maker has buttonz. I like buttons. But I also like sleep and I think that's where I'm headed next. I will try to catch up in reading everyone even if I don't manage a next round of replies :lol:

 

[Maya316]

A script like the Box would be unusual in any season in any franchise for the focus it gave one character, both in screentime and reference, and the format it took in it's storytelling. It does bear looking at in how the writers went about trying to sell the viewers on a new direction not just for the characters but inevitably for the show. And in just about every respect, Lindsay took a back seat.

Really? I'm looking at the various issues covered for each (uncertainty with each other, fear for the baby, etc) and the number of "character-moments" we got from each regarding this storyline - and for someone who went missing for half the season, Lindsay did pretty well in keeping fairly even with Danny's moments.

I don't think Danny or Carmine 'needed a chance to shine.' It's not like he otherwise doesn't. He shines in his interaction with the others, he shines in his scenes with Flack when they get to trade barbs and turn them on a suspect, eg.

A chance to shine in this storyline, then. It was his only major storyline of the season, and yes, quite frankly he needed the chance to shine because he usually doesn't in his performances with Lindsay/Anna. I'm not saying he doesn't shine in other areas - he certainly does.

Was the Box really the only time he got to be wangsty? I actually like Danny better when he's not wangsty, and he did get other scenes that I thought he was good in. As much as the writing in the Party's Over annoyed me, I liked the scene between Stella and Danny, for example. Wasn't he given ample opportunity to try everyone's patience in Communication Breakdown with the names? Wanking more than wangsting there perhaps. :lol: Didn't he get a mini wangst in Green Piece with Mac, not to mention his re-proposal to Lindsay? How about staring in the mirror and lying over the phone post-shootout in Point of No Return? Kinda wangsty sorta? I know I know, the Box was the biggest wangst, if nothing else.

Well yeah, I too like him better when he's a little more upbeat, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize that Carmine is at his strongest when Danny is going through something particularly gut-wrenching. And yes, "The Box" was the only episode we really got to see him break out the full wangst. (Although there was mini-wangst in "Point of No Return".) Were his moments in Green Piece supposed to be wangst? If others view his performances in those scenes convincing, that's good - my own opinion is that he didn't shine in them, although yes, they were definitely character moments. To me he sounded so false/insincere when he was trying to convince both Mac and Lindsay of his feelings that I thought it had to be intentional. But you know, until I actually get clarification that that's how those scenes were supposed to leave me feeling, I'm reserving judgment on whether he pulled them off or not.

Btw, if you're agreeing that AB 'wouldn't have done so well had the focus been turned on her,' isn't it possible the producers felt the same...?

I think the producers and others have long since realized it's Carmine who's the stronger one with the dramatic character angst. :lol: That's what "The Box" needed to be about, more than anything - how he as a character was reacting to the baby. He especially, given the way things were left in the past season. It was clear from the first that Lindsay wasn't going to be giving up the baby, and therefore wouldn't have had any other option but to put up with it - her method of dealing could wait. It was Danny who was the question mark. D/L itself had very little to do with "The Box", beyond being showcased as a highly-dysfunctional couple (which they both pulled off, to be fair). I really didn't see "The Box" as Danny carrying D/L; especially given how comparatively weak his reactions were when discussing Lindsay. Top41 has mentioned before, and I agree, that it's usually Lindsay we see making all the romantic overtures on Danny, putting the moves on him, indicating that there's romantic interest - Danny reacts, at best. This may partly be down to characterization, but it also means it's usually Anna we see carrying D/L.

Ummm, isn't an actor's job to sell every situation? Not just the 'realistic' ones?

Oh it is. But that doesn't mean they always do, or can. And, um, I really think it helps if the actors can at least partly relate to or understand what's going on. When they don't, it's not really that surprising when the acting gets weak.

My point exactly about AB's pregnancies is that they did probably play a part in the kind of physical work that was asked of her and her availability to the show. I think in S3 that they didn't just shuffle Lindsay blithely aside but created a great platform as a pretense to accomodate Anna's abscence. They weren't obliged to write her up anything big at all but they did. S5 I think the decision to incorporate the pregnancy in S5 meant that her participation and demands on her could be managed differently, ...and the kinds of stories too. Hmmm. S3 Dark Secret. S4 Monologue of Doom. S5 DLL. Those are her high points?

Are they my chosen high points for her character? Nope. But simple logic would demand that if there was a glaring problem or weakness with the way one of their actors performs certain types of scenes, they would avoid those kinds of scenes for that actor/character. Especially when there are several other actors on the sidelines who've rarely if ever come close to doing similar emotional scenes, though they could probably handle them at least as well. But S3 Dark Secret. Monologue of Doom; DLL. I keep seeing it mentioned that they are avoiding these kinds of scenes for Anna, but those three all seem to be fairly consistent as emotional scenes. And the fact that they keep giving Anna those kinds of scenes (despite the fact that that's already more storylines than any of the other characters save Mac, Stella, and Danny have had; and Anna's been absent from the show more often than all the other characters combined) indicate that they can't be finding much of a problem with Belknap's portrayal of said scenes. I know the portrayal doesn't connect with a lot of people here. I have other scenes that to me are far more favoured - but you know, I at least found the "Monologue of Doom" and DLL to be convincing.

:lol: Agree with the last bit but again beg to differ about the first. Most of DL has been about negotiation. I think googly eyes and flirtation etc. has contributed proportionately less to the volume of their screentime than the dramallama resulting from the pairing. I do agree that Carmine is equally culpable in DL being unconvincing. That's precisely where that unintended complexity and filling in the blanks comes into play. I think Anna stands out because, outside of S3, Lindsay's personal moments have tied back into DL, whereas Danny still gets moments outside it, and does enough with them to keep me interested in watching him. His encounter with Elgers this season is one example.

Has it really been mostly negotiation? I didn't see heavy "chemistry" between D and L in S2, but I do think the bantering was supposed to come out looking like flirtation. Although there was certainly a ridiculous amount of drama! I will say that most of the times that any actual attraction between the characters was supposed to come out, it usually seems to be coming out on Lindsay's side. I personally feel that Lindsay has had loads of personal moments outside of DL, but I will agree that the only ones that really seem to go anywhere all tie back to DL

I'm having trouble understanding here. Lindsay stands on her own somehow because of Anna who's wonderful but is stifled because the writers never thought their character stood alone and only ever gave her material relating DL? Weren't we just discussing Silent Night, for example? Didn't she also have the whole of S2 untethered?

Somewhat. :lol: Lindsay as she was written throughout most of S2 had very little substance to her character unless she was interacting with Danny. She had episodes on her own, with other characters - but with them, her dialogue consisted solely of the case, or the typical "cute, and can do no wrong" "look how cool I am chick from Montana surviving the big city" drivel. On page, it would've been impossible to tell that this girl had a single problem with the world, let alone that she was supposed to be haunted/traumatized by a dark secret. Played by a genuinely-bubbly actress who only brought to life the characteristics seen on the early script pages, I think she quickly would've become worthy of a hard kick to the head. Untethered to Danny or not, her character only ever seemed to gain ...emotional definition, I think the term might be .. when she was interacting with Danny. Belknap brought the hint of aloofness, or haunted quality to Lindsay's character, emotionally, by making it seem like the cheerfulness was just a front, and that's why all her interactions with her coworkers were for the most part strictly professional. That's why it (to me) suddenly meant something to see Lindsay in episodes on her own, away from Danny. Belknap is hardly the greatest actress to ever grace my TV screen rolleyes but do I think she did a reasonable job portraying Lindsay as a realistic person? Yeah, actually.

I've said before that I think the writers only decided to add scripted elements of realism to Lindsay's character late in S2, and I'm not convinced it was just for the sake of finally building up her "dark" secret (only to shut it down completely in S3:wtf. I think they honestly forgot about that dark secret until they decided they could define it by drawing from the element Belknap had added to the character.

I don't think S2 was all about DL. Why would they give her a whole season on her own if she was simply to be a love interest? Really Extended Foreplay? Mac and Peyton's first scene was in his bed fer chrissakes, FA were smooching outta the blu after one pretty powerful game busted out :lol: DL were so carefully nurtured? Color me doubtful Why bother with a detailed backstory at all? Why would she have been a Regular Main Character in the opening credits when every other love interest has been a recurring character?

Extended Foreplay? In a word, yeah. Mac and Peyton's first scene was in their bed - and she was gone almost exactly a year to the day she arrived. Flack/Angell took almost a year to build up - and um, I'm not sure it's a coincidence that she's gone, too. I think they'd always intended DL to be a little more long-term than that. How would they snag the ratings and the Twilight-goers away from shows like Grey's, where costars and coworkers were hooking up all over the hospital, if the only lure was a recurring character that one barely saw half the time? The sudden influx of intra-office romances in the CSI franchise was a marketing gimmick, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 2006 (the year Lindsay arrived, right?) the same year Grissom/Sara suddenly became official? Additionally, it's always been my suspicion that until Vanessa Ferlito left the show, the writers had intended to go the route of Danny/Aiden. She leaves, and suddenly there's this huge rush to add a new female costar and very-rushed, hastily-drawn new female character; despite the fact that CSI: Miami lasted 2 and a half seasons with a single female lead. And oh look, it just happened to be the same girl literally taking Aiden's place that Danny hooked up with. Really quickly, too.:shifty:

If I sound cynical, I'm sorry.

I think a flirtation doesn't hafta turn into a romance. I think S3 had it foisted on the show for cynical reasons, and she still had a chance to pull something off with the Dark Secret. I don't think NY pulled the canon romance off in the same way that Vegas did - and I wasn't a huge GSR fan or anything - but I do think that Sara and Grissom's drawn out nudging around the issue while dealing with the Job made their journey far more interesting to watch. I think I read that Sara was originally written way back when as a love interest, but it was shelved, and Sara was a full character in her own right before, and after it happened. I think S2 was as good as it got for Lindsay. Unless ya like the whole DL thing of course.

I don't think flirtation has to turn into romance either, but if TPTB decree it I think it will - especially if DL had been getting a positive response from the first (I actually don't know - did it?). I did kind of figure that about Sara in Grissom/Sara! I don't know anything about what the viewer-audience was like back then, or what the target demographic was...but I do remember hearing that CSI gained a lot of attention when it first started (didn't it win quite a few Emmys, and gain even more Emmy nominations in 2001/2?). Enough attention to attract a large audience without having to resort to romance gimmicks, I would imagine.

...eh, wha? really?? :lol: The writers are inconsiderate for giving her a deep personal history that played out over the course of several episodes?

Well, given the way they'd already played out/hinted at that deep personal history, I think the "conclusion" of it was idealistic at best (and shoddy at worst). Deep history that played out over several episodes? If we're supposed to believe this history left her as damaged as it did - and given the nature of the crime and the way "Stealing Home" played out, I don't see how we're not supposed to believe that - how are we also supposed to believe that it would tidily resolve itself in a few episodes? Would it have been believable if Mac was all crippled from Claire's death in "Blink" but had received complete closure by "Officer Blue"? Isn't this dark storyline supposed to be the main meat that gives Lindsay the scripted "layers" to her character? No one else's core storylines have been played out almost fully like this. No other character's core storylines have even really been played out yet, period, because half the point of core storylines is that they're meant to define the character's growth, or even change as the characters change (which it can't as effectively, imo, if the storyline is already played out quickly in a fell swoop). Am I supposed to see careful, character-driven planning in this?

 

[Maya316]

I think people have often tried to rationalize the state of Lindsay's development or lack thereof by saying she hadn't had the same opportunities or great scenes written for her. That's why I point to S3, because there was the Dark Secret story line, it was drawn out over several episodes where we could really have been made to feel and wonder for Lindsay instead of be annoyed by her behaviour. Less with more case in point. The story was about Lindsay alone, had little to do with DL, had everything to do with Lindsay battling some of her own personal demons. I think an actor would relish an opportunity for material like that, not feel dismissed by it. I'd hardly believe Anna felt that way. She had a chance to take something and really run with it

Lindsay has a ludicrous amount of scenes written for her, especially when you consider her role as a background character in comparison to characters like Flack (who's always with one or the other lead character) and Hawkes; who've both been on the show longer, are at least as interesting, and are played by more well-known actors. It's not really the kinds of scenes that she gets - I think they're great. It's what they all tie back to. To clarify, I know all about the Dark secret storyline. I even liked the dark secret storyline, as unrealistic as it was - because to me that started way back in Belknap's first performances. And if we're staying away from the ambiguity of how well (or not well) Belknap sold the "dark secret" storyline, it started back in "Stealing Home". To me, the dark-secret storyline was Daniel Katum's crime, and the effect it had on Lindsay as a person. And how no one other than Mac seemed to know about it. That was the secret. What was so secret about a public trial?

What I dislike, I guess, is the resolution of the "dark secret" storyline. That came in S3, with the trial and the contrived breakdowns at work. That resolution told me that once again, all roads lead to DL. You pointed it out perfectly with mentioning how Lindsay was supposed to be battling her own demons. Only we saw her do this in "Stealing Home" too. And the non-resolution to Lindsay's story in that episode purposely left us with the feeling that Lindsay was so not okay with her past. Additionally, Anna has certainly been playing the part as though she's under the impression that Lindsay were not okay with her past. Given the nature of the crime, which I think Anna was told about at least by "Stealing Home" if not a little earlier, it's not an unreasonable impression to make. So I'm wondering how the resolution of that storyline written/played out as though Lindsay were suddenly mostly okay with her past, is not supposed to come across as annoying.

I know I said something similar to Top41, but a lot about the S3 trial storyline banked on Lindsay's being able to be functional and upbeat again by the end of "Sleight Out of Hand" (I wonder why :lol. And quite a lot was contrived/made up out of thin air to get her there. At what point was it ever going to become sympathetic, rather than annoying? When Lindsay was suddenly reacting chaotically to things that had never bothered her before? [she dealt with dead teenaged girls in "Jamalot" and "Wasted" without even a blink; in "Cool Hunter" she listened to Mac's theory on what the mother's grief over her daughter had eventually driven her to do, again without a blink; in "Live or Let Die" and "Stealing Home" she seemed to know a bit more of her storyline when she dealt with the dead teenaged girls in both, but both those cases just caused her to become more driven, rather than erratic.] Or when she was being let off without even a slap on the wrist for things that would get other characters suspended, if not fired?

I mean really, if we were supposed to believe those things were her slowly breaking down because of the trial creeping up on her, they should've and would've gone the whole nine yards [breakdown, suspended/fired - like Wolfe - temporarily resigning from her job because she knew she couldn't do it right then - a la Calleigh - either way giving her the maternity-leave break] - and stuck with what they had, because they could easily have used it to go down that route. If it were at all about expanding Lindsay's character, or about Lindsay battling her demons, I think they would have. But I will say that had they gone this route, I doubt DL would've realistically been possible for quite some time after the trial, let alone the moment after the trial ended. And I have no idea how Anna felt about the S3 storyline. But I know I was confused when the resolution of this "dark secret" storyline was suddenly all about demons Lindsay had never had a problem with before, while ignoring the demons we could've guessed she did have before. I like how Lindsay was all about the "I need to know why" in "Stealing Home" - but both we and she have yet to know Daniel Katum's motives for why he killed her friends. To me that says a lot about how the storyline was handled.

Either what happened with Katum affected her deeply and it caused her to break down; which I think was the direction she'd been heading in in "Stealing Home", especially if she'd been confronted with the trial situation then. Or it didn't affect her that much, in which case she shouldn't have been skipping out on her duties, and reacting to things that had never bugged her before. If she knew she couldn't do her job (as she seemed to at least guess at in "Love Run Cold"), she should've resigned - or at least, one of the others should've made her resign. I'm not really seeing much give room for "couldn't it be both". Imo, it's the "couldn't it be both" mentality that made Lindsay so unsympathetic (objectively) in Season 3. They tried to have it both ways. It wouldn't ever get sympathetic with Lindsay both playing the "victim" card while refusing to see herself as a victim at the same time.

I watched S2 before S3 and so saw Stealing Home without knowing what Lindsay's Dark Sekrit was, and it read fine without her character being informed specifically by Katum. I think 'why' is a question anyone and everyone can struggle with.

Most people are able to let it go - even Danny, who may well be the most tenacious character on the show, is usually able to let the suspect go when he doesn't get a satisfactory answer as to why. She followed him to the jail. To me that said something was up. And yes, "why" is a question everyone can struggle with. Interesting that it doesn't seem to be one of the questions she was interested in during the trial in Season 3.

You're saying the pretense of the writing behind the character is so ridiculous that it makes it impossible to play believably, that Anna should be excused or lauded in the face of an insurmountable task? Every actor wants a backstory for their character, and if one isn't written for them then they make one up. And every tidbit that's tossed their way interim gets fed into that to modify it and make it work for their performances. Lindsay had a great one. It's an actor's job to find truths, it's an actor's job to be believable, to find something to connect with, to make you want to watch them. I honestly wasn't bothered by the fact that she became a CSI after a childhood trauma like that. There are far more absurd things on television. That didn't take me out of the show. Mind you I encounter a carnival of personalities daily. My boxes are rarely square :lol:

Anna did make her backstory up, if you ask me; giving Lindsay a generic "bloody past" is all well and good (it could mean a thousand different things, though), but it really seems like it's Anna who gave any definition to that past, at least until Season 3. People are saying here that childhood trauma doesn't always negatively affect upbeat people - that may well be true, but I think it's more than a stretch to say that it never affects upbeat people in a damaging way. It does - more often than not, I think, especially if it's childhood trauma. To me that's a truth. And the fact that it comes across in Lindsay's character makes Lindsay believable to me, despite her Mary-Sue-like tendencies. I don't think Anna should be given an Emmy for it, or even that she should be excused for the inconsistencies - but I do think she's doing her job.

I completely believe that some people are well able to overcome trauma like that, but I have to say Lindsay wouldn't have come off at all believable to me if she was one of those people...not with the way she was already written. Would she be believable to you, if it weren't so much about the aloofness, and more with the warmth? If she were, what other flaws would she have? I'm honestly curious here

ETA: Having thought a little bit more on my issue with Lindsay wanting to become a CSI despite her trauma...I guess it's not so much the motivation itself that bugged me, because before S3 they made it seem a lot like her specific damage wasn't with the blood and the gore of her friends' death, it was with the randomness of it, and the waste. But S3-storyline wanted us to think that Lindsay's specific damage was with the deaths and the mothers' grief. And if we're supposed to believe that, then how are we also supposed to believe she wanted to become a cop? Why would she want to - so she could deal with those exact things on a fairly regular basis? That's what makes no sense.

I think confronting is not the same as resolving, and that one doesn't have to result in the other. I think what the writers did was open up her past and reveal more about this mysterious superwoman from Montana. I think it was carefully laid out. I'm getting confused about what the point is here. Yes Anna was pregnant and the trial was a pretense to accomodate her haitus. It was also done in a way to be what should have been a great story, pithy stuff, a personal history dipped into in a way that a lot of characters on the show still haven't had explored to that degree. And this somehow means that little thought was put into Lindsay's character? And that there was no way to play it as 'real?' My synapses are aching a tad here :lol:

Well, I have to make it clear first that I believe confronting is a big part of resolution. No, one doesn't necessarily result in the other, but it certainly helps - is quite a huge step toward that other, actually. I don't believe I'm alone in this view. In most literature and various other mediums, the big confrontations don't take place until you're nearing the end of the story.To use a CSI analogy (again), I don't believe we've yet seen Mac actually confront Claire's death. We've seen him take off his wedding ring, accept Reid, date Peyton - but that beach ball he mentioned in "Blink"? I'd be willing to bet a lot that he hasn't thrown it away yet. And the way he still talks about her indicates it'll probably be some time before he does. Of course I might be completely off base here - for all I know, the writers have forgotten about the existence of said beach ball. But it's missing presence contributes a lot to the open-ended-ness of the Claire storyline.

Now that I've hopefully cleared that up...I'm hoping it's a little clearer why I can't view the S3 Lindsay storyline as the writers "opening up her past", especially since they seem to have started the story at the end. It's not that it was focused on in a few episodes - so was the Ruben arc, and that worked out fine. But Ruben wasn't exactly supposed to be the core of Danny's character, the story to explain why Danny is the way he is. As far as we know, we've had hints of that story, but we don't have the full story yet. Any more than we have it with Flack, or with Stella/Sid/Hawkes/etc. As for Mac, *points up*. I think there's a very good reason these characters' personal histories haven't really been dipped into yet, and not to the same extent - gives them time for those histories to develop and become better explained over time. But this is supposed to be the main aspect of Lindsay's character that gives her her layers and demons, right? If we're not counting "Stealing Home" as a part of her storyline, then this is basically it, the bloody secret. So, um, how exactly is it later going to open a can of worms that the man responsible for the demons is behind bars, justice served and all? How was the trial supposed to be open-ended for any future storylines? That seemed like poor writing to me. It's true that it doesn't completely rule out the possibility of any future storylines; and Anna Belknap does still play Lindsay with that aloof element I think was a by-product of the crime itself. But I'm not sure it was supposed to come off this way, with the possibility of storylines still being open. Lindsay was certainly back to perky and Danny-oriented quickly enough after "Sleight".

(And if the trial stuff was even harder to act than anything DL ever came up with, doesn't that perhaps kinda go toward supporting my supposition that romance is indeed not harder to do than anything else? )

Yes, good point I guess I'd probably have to conclude that any acting where you're required to be vulnerable is difficult, maybe more so if you don't understand why your character is behaving the way they are.

You say Lindsay was supposed to be extra dynamic in S4?? I never woulda guessed from AB's performances alone. (S4 dvds never touched mah monies :lol: ). Curious statement that, especially as DL seemed so vague, and Danny indifferent at best.

Oh yeah :lol: It's a toss-up between whether she was more dynamic in S2 or S4 for me. S2 feels like it should win by default because of the DL crap of latter-S4; but on the other hand, there was a hardness to Lindsay's character in S2 that didn't seem as pronounced in S4 - which I think enabled her to have more character-to-character moments outside of Danny. Purely in terms of how much more action-oriented she was than in S3, I could reel off a list of episodes where she went in to interview suspects for once...again :lol:

LOL, btw I totally agree about Danny's indifference! I knew I wasn't just imagining things And I was definitely upset that they never took D and L in separate directions after Anna Belknap announced her pregnancy. Because...well, come on, genuine way to see whether Lindsay would've stood on her own or not...

I think Sophia on Vegas was great. Miami's not a show I know well. It is beautifully shot and put together though. I'm guessing that Yelina somehow has a deep connection with the mighty H? That might have tendencies to override everything else? :lol:

I think the show opportunistically used Angell in killing her off. I don't think she was killed off so that they didn't hafta develop her :lol:. I'm saying we never got to see what more mighta been planned for her character before that decision was made. I think she was a considered trade off more than purely expendable; killing her cost no red tape, came at an opportune time when they hadda make cuts, capitalized on FA, boosted ratings, and hopefully will serve Flack in the aftermath. In a game of network chess it was a decent move.

That makes sense, I suppose. (Though almost as cold as just cutting her because she was expendable, really :lol:.) We never got to see if they'd have planned more for her, and killing her off probably did boost ratings more than just writing her out would have.

No other recurring character made as many appearances as EV in season 5. (Which makes sense, because they basically had the full set that they'd need in week-to-week episodes - from homicide detectives to MEs to lab rats.) Seasons 3 and 4, it was easily Adam, and then Sid who took the lead as far as recurring characters went.

And yeah, Yelina is mighty H's (lol) ex-sister-in-law and huge angst trigger.:lol: Or so I've gathered.

As for your trio of Mary Sues, it's the only Regular Canon Character who's still standing. Ya know. The one wot has a multi-year contract??

I think Angell's character was totally 'salvageable,' I don't think that was the issue at all . I think it was laregly about $$$ and timing. I also think that even in an idealized budget world, having two Regular full time Homicide Detectives isn't integral for the show.

Okay, true. But it's not like recurring characters don't get made into regulars quite frequently on these shows. Maybe not Peyton, but I have to say I'm stuck on the Angell thing. It probably wasn't the state of her character itself that got her cut, and maybe Angell/EV just had the worst timing in the world as far as drifting between recurring and regular character went, due to budgets and other factors. But Adam and Sid were both made regulars in S5, and they hadn't been on the show much longer than EV, comparatively. Sofia was a recurring character for two years before she made regular. And she went from Day Shift Supervisor, to CSI, to Homicide Detective - how many times did she change career paths, just so she could fit into the show? I don't know if it would've been as easy to go the other way (Homicide Detective to something else), but it could have been done for Angell, had demand really been high enough - if for no other reason that CSI rarely finds problems with bending logic to accomodate characters on their show.



Here's to hoping I made a little bit of sense this time! Off to find coffee myself, now :lol:

 

[Just.CSI]

Four threads on why she should go, I guess she should really go.

I never really cared for her, she seems to contribute nothing to the show IMO.

 

[xuxomaphone]

Well, I'm fairly new to the series. I have the season 1 box set, which doesn't do me any good Lindsay related :lol: But the few episodes I've seen with her in them, I've noticed she's so perky. And the relationship between her and Danny It's very soapy. Don't get me wrong, I like my soaps. But when my crime shows turn into soaps, well that's when things hit the fan.

Personally, I do not like her character at all. She just seems to be this giant suck-up that they wrote in to change Danny. I think he was fine the way he was. I don't know why they didn't stick with Aiden.

 

[Plenilunio]

^ Vanessa wanted out, that's why Aiden got the sack and was subsequently killed. For once, Lindsay is not to blame

Back in season 2 she was better written, I think. Now her world revolves around Danny, who is involved in everything happening to her. I don't like her, really, I don't, but I'd think her a little bit less empty and useless if we got to see her by herself, no Danny around, nothing Danny-related going on. When people get together, they shouldn't stop being independent individuals no matter how much they love each other.

 

[Top41]

Just watched this interview and I gotta say... it amazes me the lack of depth with which Anna talks about Lindsay. It was conducted after season four by an Asian television station... but even after three seasons on the show, Anna is still just falling back on that Lindsay is "perky" and "from the country." That's it.