I’ve never really sat down with the intent to watch an episode of any of the CSI series, but recently at my new job, it seems to be on all the time in one form or another. But I’m annoyed by something: They all seem to be the same show! Besides the obvious cast differences, and the more subtle color-scheme differences, are there really any major points that differentiate each of the three CSI series from each other? Could every story have been set in, for example, Las Vegas and still work?
There ARE differences. Miami is like the high camp version of this show…everything is more over-the-top than a 6’6" drag queen in a sequinned bikini. Everything is the MOST. DRAMATIC. PLOTLINE. EVER!
New York is the snarky version. It seems like every promo for it includes at least one Lenny-Brisco-esque throwaway line.
When Grissom leaves CSI: Vegas, that’ll be it for me. I might catch the occasional rerun when nothing else is on, but I like the lead character to be a nerd, not a cliché tough-guy like Sinise or Caruso or (I suspect) Fishburne.
The franchise is popular enough to hold down three time slots, but making three episodes of the exact same show each week would be very tiring for the cast and crew.
Why don’t you ask Dick Wolf that question? Talk about someone taking a franchise and running with it.
As much as I love Gary Sinise, I never watched NY. I watched some episodes of Miami but lost interest. Now, since Sara and Warwick are gone, I usually catch up on Vegas on On Demand…although I noticed they didn’t air the most recent Lady Heather show. I’ll have to catch that one when CBS re-airs it.
I’ll probablv finish the season. Just to see where they go with Morpheus. He seems to be an University professor teaching criminal psychology with no training in forensics and/or police procedurals and he becomes the head of a crime lab . I could see him join a cast like Criminal Minds with that background, not CSI.
BTW do you realize that this is the first CSI thread since they started this season ?
Likely a product of the franchise fading into the general television cacophony. If House goes to ten seasons, I suspect we’ll see fewer threads about it, too, because it’ll inevitably start rehashing plotlines and lose whatever novelty it once had.
Anyway, the inclusion of Fishburne’s character strikes me as one of those “get a hammer, and the world is made of nails” moments. If the lead is someone trained in the deep dark psychology of serial killers, then every episode will have to include a serial killer subplot. Trouble is, I don’t like serial killers (Dexter excepted). It’ll no longer be about “can we use some smidgen of deductive reasoning and interesting (albeit slightly fictionalized) science to find a clue”, but “can we interpret the clues the serial killer left behind on purpose to taunt us with his genius?” One episode I rather liked was about a dead college student and the team reconstructing her final moments to discover her death was an accident, albeit one of Rube Goldberg dimensions. The miniature killer story arc, by comparison, was just tedious.
I can understand why TV writers like serial killers, though - they’re easy to write. Just make up some weird obsession and run with it, without having to throw in technobabble like DNA typing and whatnot, because we assume the serial killer is simply too brilliant to ever leave such mundane clues.
I believe they introduced his charector was a former Medical Doctor who’s family was killed by a serial killer, hence his study of them.
This also seems to be the current cliche, the lead char in these shows must be somehow damaged by and probably still looking for a serial killer. (Mentalist, etc…)
Here’s how I picture the first Fishburne season: there’s been a horrible murder, but the CSIs are mystified to find there are no usable fingerprints or DNA samples. The only out-of-place object at the scene is a small wedge made of bright yellow plastic. The next four episodes will be consumed by the search for the Trivial Pursuit Killer, with Fishburne expecting there to be six murders in all. They focus in on a suspect early, a guy who has trophies from Trivial Pursuit contests, and who knew the victim, and has no alibi for the time of the murder, but Fishburne has his doubts because “the profile doesn’t match.” After much time-wasting and four more murders, the actual killer commits suicide on camera, holding a pink wedge and making his last words: “That’s Entertainment!” It’s over.
Or is it? In the final seconds of the episode, an anonymous letter arrives for Fishburne containing only two words: “Roll again…”
Apparently, he was an MD who had an “Angel of Death” killer at his hospital, but as the pathologist he just couldn’t put the pieces together. I only know because I watched the first of the two-parter handoff episode for him on OnDemand last night. The guy playing the “Dick & Jane” killer was pretty creepy, even if he had a stupid name.
CSI: Miami is like the other two but with a horrible cast (horrible enough to get regular appearances on Talk Soup).
LV takes place at night, while NY is mostly during the day…I haven’t watched any of the shows in a couple years so I can’t really comment with how the quality of those are. I can tell you that the first season of NY was filmed in Canada and looked NOTHING like NYC (and the writers thought that NY was still stuck in the early 80s), but they fixed everything for season 2.
I was a big fan of the original CSI (partly because of the Las Vegas setting) but when Miami started I never got around to watching it. Last year one of the cable channels ran a Miami marathon and since I had nothing better to do I watched most of it. I was not impressed, and haven’t bothered trying to watch it since. NY I find more interesting, although I can’t really say why.
Regarding Fishburne replacing Peterson, I’m adopting a “wait and see” attitude. From the intro episode, I can’t tell what sort of supervisor Fishburne’s character is going to make, or what his approach towards the team will be. Grissom was an interesting character, with a few quirks and more interested in determining the truth than actually seeing “justice” done; I suspect Fishburne’s character might be more interested in “justice” at the possible expense of proper forensic techniques.
. I could see him join a cast like Criminal Minds with that background, not CSI.