Dragging in a musical guest – immaterial of how good that guest is – is never a positive sign for a TV show.
One step before shark-jumping.
Maybe that’s why this episode felt so lightweight…with the musical guest, and lead-in to next week’s mysteries, they’d wrapped up 2 cases by the 45 min mark.
Well, I was originally just mentioning Sam in relation to the DNA evidence, but having Sam have the guy killed did occur to me after I posted it.
Well, Cat won’t let him. She’ll be tempted, but her basic coppishness will stop her. I mean, it’s obvious; otherwise the episode will be over in ten minutes without any Inner Conflict.
I was going to give up on this one, since Grey’s Anatomy is on at the same time, plus I was just getting tired of it, and then I realized I can watch it whenever I want on OnDemand.
Which one was Danny Bonaduce? The suicide guy or the diorama guy?
From here it’s a just a small step to featuring “special guest” Tim Conway or the Harlem Globetrotters.
Yes, I thought that was odd. It was filler for no reason, except to get Catherine in a bar so her drink could get spiked, and show her and Nick nuzzling on the dance floor. I taped it, so I ended up zipping past that part. Fluff, I tell you!
This episode seemed disjointed, like none of the actors had hit their stride after the summer break. No chemistry, so-so cases, and we didn’t find out if Warwick is still married.
I don’t like the way TPTB have treated Catherine-the-Single-Mother, as apparently she hardly spends any time with her daughter, even though Lindsey (last time we saw her) was heading toward trouble. I’m wondering if the producers have decided to lop off an irritating loose thread by killing off Lindsey, making Catherine footloose and fancy free?
The diorama guy was a doll. It was weird…I didn’t catch what it was until you saw the eye peeking through the window of the diorama…I thought the victim had had a badly melted face, AND I thought Catherine was in a house and this was part of her deal, with the victim face down on the kitchen table. I thought this was Catherine-killing-her-attacker-and-having-no-memory-of-it.
Sorry for hijacking here - normally, when I post a thread and get a big nothing in reply, I just stick my tail between my legs and slink off. But in this case, I gotta ask: did NO ONE ELSE find it a bit skeevy how they lingered on Catherine and played up her sexuality at the same time they wanted us to empathize emotionally with her apparent rape?
Please note - I am NOT puritannical, conservative, etc. - hardly. I am all for provocative plotlines and grown-up television. I think that is why I was so put off - I think there are many, many ways plotlines like this can be handled well - it was the juxtaposition of the titillation with the gravity of the situation that put me off.
I guess I am also surprised that no one else has commented on it - even on my post. If you basically think “eeesh, WordMan, it’s just television” - fine, just say that - but I am genuinely curious, given how strongly I realized I felt about it…
WordMan, I agree with you and had the same feelings. I have come to care for the characters and did feel bad about Catherine being raped. I also felt very uncomfortable about the bare back and especially uncomfortable when she was taking evidence. (Ugh) It all just seemed to add insult to injury.
I agree with the general opinion that it was a weak episode. In the dancer death portion, I thought that the video showed someone pushing her off. Am I mistaken? That wouldn’t jive with the story of the guy with her. In addition, why would they assume his story was correct without further proof? Quite weak and a worrying start to the season.
We’ve seen it too many times already. Heck on Hunter (1984-1991), Stepfanie Kramer got raped in two episodes. The pandering was too obvious for any real empathy.
Besides, as has been pointed out, there is the possibility of confusion from excessively tight editing with scenes from the diorama murder. My first thought was “oh, boy, another supercriminal has shown up to taunt the CSI crew, this time planting Willows in an elaborately concocted murder scene.”
The whole roofie lead-in wasn’t promising, either, since it’s been done often enough on other shows. I stand by my earlier assessment - I’d prefer it turn out to be just a drunken and embarrassing encounter with Stokes that puts a strain on the friendship in part because he’s a little freaked out by her over-reaction (which is at first understandable since she has no clear memory of the night before). I’m sure this kind of thing happens a lot when co-workers go out drinking together, or at least far more often than the bug-a-boo the media has made about roofies. It would be braver of the CSI writers to avoid the nice tidy find-the-rapist, arrest-the-rapist, jail-the-rapist, never-discuss-the-rapist-again pattern, and go with “Willows and Stokes were both drunk, half the responsibility is hers, there will be a lingering discomfort between them, either of them might sometimes be a jerk about it, etc.” Will CSI risk antagonizing people who want to say Willows is 100% victim with 0% responsibility? I sure hope so.
Well, I thought it was a bit odd, in that they seem to have veered off the two cases they were working on and it was like, “Oh, they solved those? Now where are we going?” I didn’t see them playing up her sexuality as much as showing her in a strange room in a strange bed, obviously just after sex, and I’m guessing it will turn out the guy that raped her honestly didn’t think he raped her. There was no bruising, no force, just incapacitation. (Yes, I know that’s still rape, but I’m guessing that’s what her rapist will try to argue…he was just trying to “get her in the mood.”)
I had the feeling this was originally supposed to have been a 2-hour episode but then CBS decided on a 1-hour premiere, so TPTB had to make some last minute changes.
I agree. If Cat had clothes on, would anyone think she had possibly been raped? I also thought her collecting evidence on herself, while not the best idea, was quite clever.
Just to answer an up post… she wasn’t with Stokes… there was a brief scene where he waved ‘bye’ to her as he left with the other girl.
I am squicked about it, after all, this is a charector that we ‘know’… I’m going to wait and see what part 2 has to offer before I judge too quickly…
I believe the video shows him pulling the victim back from the railing when she loses her purse over it. I too am puzzled by the seeming lack of effort to find out if what he said (part of the scenery coming around and clipping her skull) is true or not. On the other hand, it’s pretty plausible given what they showed going on during the show.
That diorame murder is tremendously creepy. I’m looking forward to seeing what they make of it.
Not too happy with the Willows story line, though. I even predicted it as soon as I saw them doing the “blurred image and distorted soundtrack” effects, and then I spent the rest of the show trying to figure out how the drug got in her drink. Does anyone remember if it was a fresh drink ordered from the bar tender when she got to the bar, or was it a drink that she went back to? If the latter, the opportunity certainly existed to drug it. The scene of her improvising a rape kit was both fascinating and repellant at the same time. Does anybody know if evidence collected this way would be admissable in court?
It’s creepy yes, but maybe more noticeable because she’s a regular character. I’m personally getting freaked out by the horrifically-abuse-a-woman oneupmanship of many shows on the air now. Women don’t just get killed; they have to get tortured, mutilated, maimed, disfigured, burned alive with bits lobbed off and deposited in dumpsters as a matter of course. On network channels in primetime. Now I haven’t actually done the math, but I am willing to bet that these fates befall male characters on a far less frequent basis (“Oh my, he was sodomized with a Howitzer, his testicles were turned inside out and he was dissolved alive in acetone. By a serial killer. Who promises to do something even MORE nauseating to the next guy”.)
That said, the rape kit thing was pretty disturbing. And it seems she should know that it’s a bad idea, evidence-wise, for her to do it herself.
Okay, one more rant, and not an original one, I’m sure: I think it’s bizarre that we’re expected to believe that Catherine, obviously a mature and professional woman, would ever dress the way she does for the job she does. I mean, come on! You need to have constant cleavage display and high heels to dig through a dumpster?!
Yes, and to pursue civil suits, too (ref: Erin Brockovich).