|
CSI:NY
Sept 16, 2004 1:18:45 GMT -5
Post by Observer2 on Sept 16, 2004 1:18:45 GMT -5
I watched the repeat of the CSI:NY spin-off episode of CSI:Miami tonight. It’s the second time I’ve seen it, and it’s the only episode of CSI:Miami I’ve ever managed to watch all the way through.
With apologies to CSI:Miami fans, I have to say that putting David Caruso in the same scenes with Gary Sinise is really not kind. It’s not that Caruso is any worse than the usual level of television actor... it’s just that Sinise is working on a whole different level of natural realism, and Caruso suffers by comparison.
I’m really bummed and frustrated that they’re running CSI:NY opposite L&O – though of course it was absolutely predictable that they would. For the first time, I actually want to watch L&O, at least for a while, to see how it plays with Dennis Farina, and how the new partnership dynamics turn out. As good as Orbach is at his particular style, it seems to me that Martin and Merkerson (Van Buren) portray a more realistic style of cop. I expect Farina to fit right in with that, and I could end up actually enjoying at least the first half of the new shows. But I won’t have a chance to find out until CSI:NY goes into repeats... Oh, well.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 16, 2004 9:06:36 GMT -5
Post by trisha on Sept 16, 2004 9:06:36 GMT -5
[insert joke about Brukheimer and lemmings here]
I tried really hard to watch that episode of Miami to see the lead in for NY, but Caruso was really workin the creepy whisper and Suglasses of Justice, and I officially despise that character. The only reason to watch that show is Rory Cochrane (extreme hotty), and of coarse, Gary Sinise, whom I adore. But, I don't think I'll overthrow L&O for a Bruckhiemer production. I just can't stand the ultra dark to ultra light cinematography, the dependance on characters personal lives, or the mystery for morons writing. Also, where are the detectives? And don't tell me one detective to 5 CSI's on a case is normal police procedure.
Let me know if NY is any better than Vegas and Miami in these respects, and maybe I'll give it a shot when it reruns.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 16, 2004 9:21:56 GMT -5
Post by Patcat on Sept 16, 2004 9:21:56 GMT -5
I can't stand anything Bruckheimer has ever done--all of his films and programs are dark (by which I mean you can't see anything--I'm fine with dark subjects and tones, else why would I watch LOCI?) and loud. Very loud. Needed earplugs to watch THE ROCK.
Wait, I do watch WITHOUT A TRACE, but only for Anthony LaPaglia. And I might give CSI:NY a chance if only to see Gary Sinise. But even my affection for Willaim Peterson doesn't make up for my annoyance at the show's style.
Patcat
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 16, 2004 11:37:41 GMT -5
Post by Observer2 on Sept 16, 2004 11:37:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I watch Without a Trace when I have time, and I would watch Peterson if CSI were even vaguely watchable – but with the soap, the slick, glamour magazine style, and, as Trisha put it so well, the mystery for morons writing, I just can’t manage it.
Trisha, at least one of the aspects you mentioned is better on the NY version – the lead character is *Detective* Mac Taylor, Crime Scene Unit, 1st grade. (I got the spelling of the first name off a website – my first guess is that it’s short for a Scottish family name used as a first name.) So the NY version at least gives us a detective as the lead.
The fact that Sinise was willing to sign on to the project gives me some hope that there may be differences in the writing and general style of the show, as well.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 16, 2004 12:19:58 GMT -5
Post by NikkiGreen on Sept 16, 2004 12:19:58 GMT -5
The CTV shows both the L&O and CSI family of shows. I may get a chance to try out CSI:NY, depending on which day the CTV puts it on.
I've only seen CI:M a few times and that was a few too many!
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 16, 2004 13:52:49 GMT -5
Post by Patcat on Sept 16, 2004 13:52:49 GMT -5
It's interesting that in England CSI and either LOSVU or LOCI are on the same channel and night. The British critics (I only read a few) seemed to respond more favorably to LOCI than those in the US.
Patcat
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 16, 2004 14:35:39 GMT -5
Post by NikkiGreen on Sept 16, 2004 14:35:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 17, 2004 1:52:25 GMT -5
Post by LOCIfan on Sept 17, 2004 1:52:25 GMT -5
Dear Patcat,
Can you provide links to the pro-LOCI Brit critics? I'd be very interested in reading their reviews.
As for Sinese being interested in television -- it doesn't necessarily mean he was attracted to the quality, unless you're talking about the paycheck + the fact that he will be able to spend more time with his family.
In fact, Kathryn Erbe's husband, Terry Kinney, has a recurring role on CSI-NY, and he took it because of the pay and because he'd be able to spend more time with his family.
Best,
LOCIfan
p.s. Trisha: Love your post-icon!! And also that you've got the guts to bring it into this forum!!
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 17, 2004 8:21:38 GMT -5
Post by Metella on Sept 17, 2004 8:21:38 GMT -5
ha ha Trisha has a load of guts ..... Yeah, I think most of our icons are cool; but I have lost my most fav one with the book.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 17, 2004 9:22:56 GMT -5
Post by Patcat on Sept 17, 2004 9:22:56 GMT -5
LOCIFan;
Unfortunately, I can't remember any of the specific review. I think they were from the TIMES and THE GUARDIAN. You might check the reelvincentd'onofrio.com page for some.
Patcat
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 26, 2004 2:09:30 GMT -5
Post by Observer2 on Sept 26, 2004 2:09:30 GMT -5
~~ SPOILER WARNING ~~ Well, I watched the premiere of CSI:NY, instead of the second hour of L&O with the new guy, Farina. The short version of the review (just for you, Metella ) is, Sinise does a great job, and the writers don’t. Oh, and there’s also the sociologically questionable – and medically inaccurate – graphic depiction of the someone's-hands-around-her-throat, frantically gasping woman in the midst of being attacked, shown at great length and with strangling noises, even though her airway was not being occluded and the arteries to her brain were being occluded, which would have produced rapid – but much less dramatic and titillating – loss of consciousness. [If you think I’m irritated by that, you’re right. One of the first things I noticed about Criminal Intent, and something I really like about it, is the fact that they don’t show the actual murders. Plus, their medical forensics tend to be very accurate – not skewed in order to add that touch of “drama.”] Anyway, back to CSI:NY. The story starts out with an intriguing puzzle – they find the dumped body of a dead woman – a woman who had spent so much time bedridden that she had bedsores. And she died from a stroke, but it was a secondary stroke – a hemorrhagic stroke (a stroke caused by a ruptured blood vessel), that occurred because of the deterioration of blood vessels that resulted from an earlier ischemic stroke (a stroke caused by interruption of blood flow to the brain). And she had small, fingertip-sized bruises on her throat, but no indications of strangulation. (Just don’t ask me to spell the “pi teek ee al” hemorrhages she did *not* have in her eyes. I learned that word watching Forensic Files on Court TV, not when I worked at the hospital, and I’ve never even seen it written down.). Anyway, from the point of view of someone interested in both medicine and mysteries, this was a great beginning. I was looking forward to working out the puzzle along with the detectives. Well, one of the early clues is that they discover that she inhaled “something that didn’t agree with her body” shortly before death. So that had me really puzzled. Then, later, come to find out that the perpetrator was a cab driver who apparently used doped cigarettes to incapacitate women who had gotten into his cab. So, he gave this woman a doped cigarette, which incapacitated her so he could occlude the arteries to her brain, causing an ischemic stroke. Then he kept her on life-support (ventilator and all) long enough for her to get bed sores. Then she died. But she inhaled the cigarette shortly before she died?? Just how fast do these people think bedsores develop? And they showed us some nice, big, well-developed bedsores... The woman who should have inhaled the cigarette shortly before she died was the other dumped victim, the one they found second, who had a broken neck. That would have made sense. But that would have meant putting that clue a bit later in the show, which they may not have wanted to do. And at the time they gave us the clue, we had no way of knowing that it didn’t make sense for that victim. What, they think we don’t remember these things and put them together? Of course, it may be possible that the fault is not with the writers. I’d have to go back and check to see if the scene where we got that clue had other info that locks it into place in the sequence. If not, then it could have been switched in post-production, and the blame would be on someone other than the writers. In any case, the showrunner should have caught it. Balcer would never have let something like that slip through. If CSI:NY keeps this up, they don’t need to look for any Edgar nominations, that’s for sure. So the mystery aspect of the writing was a disappointment. And the medical forensics were uneven – they suffered when they conflicted with any other aspect of the show, such as showing dramatic “strangulations,” or where someone wanted a clue to go; but they were pretty good otherwise. As far as acting goes, Sinise, naturally, did well with what they gave him; and my first impression of the other actors is surprisingly good for television actors. I like the theme song. And the signature phrase, the concept from quantum physics that, “Everything is connected,” was, to me, a hopeful sign in the spin-off episode. Now, though, I’m starting to think that weaving it, and the underlying concepts/philosophies it implies, into the stories and character in a realistic way is probably beyond the writers of this show. I think it sounded good to them; but they don’t really know what it means, or what kind of person would have that as part of their way of looking at the world. Perhaps Sinise can give some sense of it, even if the writers are clumsy with it. The cinematography is self-consciously artsy – which, for me, gets in the way of just losing myself in the story. But at least it doesn’t constantly make me think of a glossy magazine, the way the original CSI does. This show strikes me as CSI:CI -- CSI’s attempt to integrate some of the qualities of Criminal Intent into their formula – with a little of the mood and tone of Without a Trace thrown in. On the other hand, I don’t mind a show being derivative, if it’s done really well. This one got off to a very uneven start. If you want to see what a class actor can do without having Criminal Intent’s quality in the other aspects of the production, this may, unfortunately, end up being an illustration of just that. Remember Michael Jordan? Remember what happened when he played for the Washington Wizards? It takes more than one franchise player to make a championship team.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 27, 2004 14:45:58 GMT -5
Post by NikkiGreen on Sept 27, 2004 14:45:58 GMT -5
Wow, Observer!
You sat through the whole hour! I could only stand about 10 minutes and switched back to L&O, even though that was being taped.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Sept 27, 2004 19:28:39 GMT -5
Post by trisha on Sept 27, 2004 19:28:39 GMT -5
Lol! Observer, I totally feel your pain on the TMI cam (too much information) It's use seems to be purely to make the show look techie and cool while instructing the viewer on basic physics and anatomy. It is a big waste of time, but without it, they'd have to write in an extra 10 minutes of story, and the 32 minutes they already have is usually crap to begin with. So, are you planning on tuning in for more torture? Be careful, I did this for the love of an actor, and now every time I see David Caruso, I see The Grief Whisperer.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Oct 1, 2004 3:24:13 GMT -5
Post by Observer2 on Oct 1, 2004 3:24:13 GMT -5
So, are you planning on tuning in for more torture? [/i].[/quote] Good description of it. Episode #2 was a case of "second verse, worse than the first!" (...with apologies to... *snicker!* Never mind. I can’t quite bring myself to apologize for anything I do to a song called ‘Enry the Eighth by a group called Herman’s Hermits!) Anyway... rats. Why did it have to be rats? A bunch of rats gnawing on this nearly dead, and then dead, guy – crawling inside the gunshot wound to get at the tasty innards... fine. I can go with that. But then, get this, a rat ate the bullet. Excuse me? And I quote – though I may be a bit off – I’ve already taped over it. That’s how bad it was. Anyway, something to the effect of, ‘It must have taken a big bite and didn’t even know the bullet was in there.’<br> Sheesh. Makes, “They must not have gotten what they were after” sound almost sensible. Now, I can understand a writer not knowing much about rats. What I can’t understand is a writer using something they know little about as a major plot device and not doing the research. I wrote a story once that hinged in part on old-style, heirloom roses. I didn’t know a thing about them, except that they existed. Now I know which kinds, and what colors, came from China; and I can tell the original red China, and the first type developed from it in Europe, apart by smell, though they look almost exactly alike. By the same token, I expect someone using the idea of a rat eating a piece of metal nearly half the size of its head to have found someone who knows something about rats and asked – is this possible? I’ve observed rodents all my life, and owned more than a few of them. I’ve had mice, hamsters, rabbits, nursed an injured chipmunk back to health, had a squirrel for a while, and cared for the class rat in elementary school. I’ve never seen any rodent take a big bite of anything. Certainly not as big, proportionally, as a bullet would be to a rat. Chipmunks will stuff their cheeks with acorns, but they won’t swallow them whole. When they eat, they take tiny little bites. And then it gets more interesting. Remember how the guy said that it must have taken a big bite and not registered that the metal was in there? Well, once they get the bullet out of the dead rat, come to find out it’s been marred by the rat’s teeth so badly that they can only get about half the striations to try to get a ballistics match. What’s wrong with this picture? What’s wrong with this writer? Oh, and the other case in this episode? They follow a trail of bloody footprints, left by the victim as she staggered away from the crime scene. They backtrack her to the entrance to Central Park. At which point they stop, and Mac gets to say, "Looks like we got ourselves an 800-acre crime scene." And then they go through this long, intricate process to figure out where in the park the crime actually happened. Apparently the blood just suddenly appeared on her foot right when she got to the park entrance. Either that, or for some reason these crime scene specialists can’t backtrack a blood trail through grass, dirt, or whatever. What’s wrong with this picture? I’ll watch a few more – maybe they’ll get better... but I’m starting to think I was right to worry after last week’s episode. Gary Sinise may be in for a long, painful season... sort of like Michael Jordan with the Washington Wizards.
|
|
|
CSI:NY
Oct 1, 2004 7:03:22 GMT -5
Post by Metella on Oct 1, 2004 7:03:22 GMT -5
didn't see it, but that critique made me chuckle, Observer. That's one I may catch drunk & make fun of while I watch it, eh? ;D
|
|