Discussion in 'CSI: Crime Scene Investigation' started by Destiny, Nov 15, 2008.
This is probably the whole point of this episode. There may be flashbacks.
This might be the 4 to 6 episodes some GSR fans are touting to be Sara's appearances.
They didn't say she would be IN 4 to 6 eppies, just that she would be appearing in 4 to 6 eppys.
Those sneaky TPTB.
This is what I think, too, references and maybe flashbacks, but no Sara in person. If nothing else, she will be the elephant in the room, so to speak.
I thought this was the episode where the CSI's were going up against an attorney who was good at getting criminals off, or something. And this was their chance to finally beat him. Or am I thinking of something else. Or maybe just false spoilers again.
I'm looking forward to this epi. Something has to happen to really push Grissom's buttons, I think.
Is she listed in the credits? If not can they use the flashbacks without listing her? It's a money thing...you don't get royalties if you're not listed in the credits.
I was thinking along the lines of flashbacks from DD; she wouldn't get paid again for those, I'm sure. I don't think they need her in this episode to make the point of how personal this is to Grissom. But they might want to remind casual viewers of the Natalie/Sara/Grissom connection through flashbacks.
Or maybe being tasered and drugged put Sara at a bit of a disadvantage.
I remember Danny Bonaducie (I know I spelled that wrong) was in guest credits when he was only in flashbacks. Jorja was in the guest credits for Leave out the rest. I'm pretty sure if they use the actors face at all they have to be in the credits and pay them too.
I am going off topic here to answer this question with a little more depth.
Nope she isn't in the credits for this episode, and yes they can use her in flashbacks without listing her in the credits as long as the flashbacks that they are using are from previous episodes, if they decided to do a flashback of her in which she had to come in and film a part that has never been seen then they would then give her credit for that. -- Most actors/actresses have it put in their contract regarding their image used in flashbacks as well as in repeat episodes, most times it is one set amount for so many either eps or uses of the image, example they say we will give you [insert amount] for using your image or scene six times and if we go over that then you would be paid [insert amount] for the extra usages. Same analogy applies for repeated eps. The repeated eps are done because of syndication to other networks, DVD's, ect.
Another example one actress on another show/network at one point had it put in her contract that if she was no longer on the show that she would be paid a certain amount just to have her characters picture used in any given episode, which it rarely was after she left the show, this also included any episode in which her image would also be used in flashback, which was rarely as well after she left, now they did do a flashback on said show but the actress was not paid for it because they had used parts of previous eps that used a look alike stunt double. Nifty little loopholes if you can get them.
But as to Jorja, again no she doesn't have to be listed in the credits via print or on the screen where you see the names flash, or even in the credits that run after the episode has ended. Usually this only happens if it is in their contract or an amendment to it. A good example she was shown in a video in "Leave Out All The Rest" but she was not credited in that episode officially.
Hope this helps. Going back on topic now.
Just one more thing..it's like in the movie Se7en when Kevin Spacey made sure his name wasn't credited till the end so no one knew who the serial killer was..
Back on topic.
Not to belabor a point or anything, Jorja may have not been listed in the press release that she was in the episode but she was listed in the credits.
I think Sara will be in flashbacks only, and as a previous poster pointed out, they are probably just to remind casual viewers of Natalie's crimes/victims.
It's interesting how this epi seems to be shaking out (if previews are any indication). The initial spoilers (and, in fact, the current press release) for this epi were all about this mother/daughter murder that was linked to an old case. A line about Natalie, and nothing more. I think the Grissom/Natalie thing will be huge this week in terms of its impact on Grissom, but I'm not sure how much airtime it will actually consume. I do think the fact that they've tied the mom/daughter murder to an old case will make it a pretty big deal. I also think we're getting to point in the season where we need to see Nick and/or Catherine really shine in terms of the crime-solving. Not that they haven't in the past, but this season I'm not feeling it. In LOATR, they were left with an open case. In SU, they were just helping out on the case.
I could see Greg's promotion being announced or whatever in 9.9 or 9.10. I do think they'll make mention of it before Grissom's departure. We had Nick being promoted to a level III in the pilot (or was it the 2nd epi?) I think seeing Greg reach that point at the end of CSI 1.0 would make sense. But I think I've wandered off topic and this probably belongs on the Season 9 board, so I'll shut up now.
I really hope that Grissom is the one to promote Greg. It doesn't have to be a big deal and it probably won't be. Like Nick and Warrick were just handed their new ID's.
I'm sure Grissom will be the one to promote Greggo, he is supervisor after all.
I'm kinda looking forward to this eppy and I'm not, if you get me. It'll be good to have a proper conclusion to the Miniture (sp?) Killer arch, but at the same time I hope there's not too much moody, depressive Grissom, and more focussed, on a case, wanting a result Grissom, because the former gives me a headache and makes me want to slap him (even though he'd probably like it lol)
We'll just have to see what happens Thursday (or Friday in my case hehe)
Well it would depend on whether or not Greg gets promoted before or after Grissom leaves. I hope it's before so he can promote him before he goes.
Or, Cathrine could promote him since she is supposed to take over pretty soon.
I can hope right?
Separate names with a comma.