CSI Files
Captain
The decision to end last season with a character-centric cliffhanger, rather than the tried-and-true formula for violence, was well-thought.
Traditionally, when a show ended on a cliffhanger, characters were left in an unpleasant situation. Typically, there was a threat of death. Viewers were left wondering if the character would survive. Then they would tune in for next season’s premiere and things would be just the same as before.
Now it seems the trend is toward low-key season enders. The days of the who-shot-J.R. cliffhanger may be over. The CSI season finale did contain an act of violence that put the life of one of it’s characters in jeopardy. However, the shooting occurred early in the episode.
According to CSI executive producer <font color=yellow>Naren Shankar</font>, shooting a character wouldn’t have provided an effective ending to the season because it’s been done too often. “The whole notion of one of the regulars getting shot, and his life is on the line, has become so familiar as a season-ender that it’s boring. I remember watching a bunch of season finales of a bunch of different shows, and the promos started looking the same. ‘Who is going to die? Who will die?’” Instead, Shankar and executive producer <font color=yellow>Carol Mendelsohn</font> focused their first-ever cliffhanger on the characters’ emotions and relationships.
Television viewers have become increasingly sophisticated. They are familiar with the formulas. Audiences can be turned off when teased with the possibility of death or violence because they know that a lead character won’t die. “The death of a character is one of those very commonplace things that has become a cliché,” Shankar says. “There are other ways to do things, that don’t require you to commit some act of violence.” Shankar continues on to say, “It’s a device that is particularly effective on shows like CSI, which aren’t known for character development. Fans were surprised.”
To read more, see <A class="link" HREF=http://macleans.ca/shared/print.jsp?content=20060925_133519_133519>Macleans</a>.<center></center>
Traditionally, when a show ended on a cliffhanger, characters were left in an unpleasant situation. Typically, there was a threat of death. Viewers were left wondering if the character would survive. Then they would tune in for next season’s premiere and things would be just the same as before.
Now it seems the trend is toward low-key season enders. The days of the who-shot-J.R. cliffhanger may be over. The CSI season finale did contain an act of violence that put the life of one of it’s characters in jeopardy. However, the shooting occurred early in the episode.
According to CSI executive producer <font color=yellow>Naren Shankar</font>, shooting a character wouldn’t have provided an effective ending to the season because it’s been done too often. “The whole notion of one of the regulars getting shot, and his life is on the line, has become so familiar as a season-ender that it’s boring. I remember watching a bunch of season finales of a bunch of different shows, and the promos started looking the same. ‘Who is going to die? Who will die?’” Instead, Shankar and executive producer <font color=yellow>Carol Mendelsohn</font> focused their first-ever cliffhanger on the characters’ emotions and relationships.
Television viewers have become increasingly sophisticated. They are familiar with the formulas. Audiences can be turned off when teased with the possibility of death or violence because they know that a lead character won’t die. “The death of a character is one of those very commonplace things that has become a cliché,” Shankar says. “There are other ways to do things, that don’t require you to commit some act of violence.” Shankar continues on to say, “It’s a device that is particularly effective on shows like CSI, which aren’t known for character development. Fans were surprised.”
To read more, see <A class="link" HREF=http://macleans.ca/shared/print.jsp?content=20060925_133519_133519>Macleans</a>.<center></center>
