I’ve been a fan of CSI, and I think it’s grown old. They not only saturated the network with two hour-long spin-offs, but the original cast doesn’t interest me much any more.
Grissom - Boring, pompous intellectual that is socially disfunctional and likes bugs. We get it.
Catherine - Old stripper turned CSI who’s struggle as a single mother makes her annoying on so many levels. She turns holier-than-thou to parents that neglect children, but she’s NEVER with her beloved Linsey. Plus, she’s really starting to look like a ragged whore. People age. Can’t people just accept it instead of trying to keep her drooping cleavage in my face and her ass squished into pants designed for a 16 year old? You don’t have to dress her like a nun, but dress her like a professional, not a retired 40-something stripper.
Nick - Mr. I Need a New Look Each Season.
Warrick - The only guy I like.
And the rest of the cast of characters are not worth slamming.
I’m fascinated by this show’s longevity. Talk about beating something to death. It’s virtually the same story line three times a week…
Any other thoughts? (besides my need to change the station. I have. )
Yeah, I’m definitely over CSI. I thought it was great at first. I loved the original, and liked Miami even better. Then CSI: NY came along, which I didn’t like at all. Now Miami drives me nuts. I can’t stand David Caruso or his character. I think Miami started to lose me when they killed off my favorite character (Tim). Even the original has lost my interest now. The plots are bad and everything seems so unrealistic. There’s a chance, of course, that it’s been that way all along and I’m just now catching on. Either way, CSI isn’t something I’d go out of my way to watch anymore.
I vote for “jumped at conception.” Silly plots and low-level eroticism surrounding the autopsies (sp?) really turned me off every time I’ve tried to watch it. Bleh.
Yeah, the plotlines are getting a bit stale. But, as long as Jorja Fox and Louise Lombard are on the show, I’ll keep watching. For one hour every week I get to delude myself that the friction between Det. Curtis and Sara Sidle is actually sexual tension.
There are far too many CSI shows. They’re totally unrealistic, and full of fluff and razzle dazzle and flashing lights. CSI:Miami is especially melodramatic–Horatio’s faked uber-serious badass voice is utterly laughable, and the uber-serious lines he drops in it are comedy gold. The storylines are contrived and each episode suffers from what I call Coach Carter Syndrome, ie the need to water down content with pointless little clips of near-naked cheerleaders dancing suggestively and similarly scintillating “come-hither” calls to the prized 18-34 year old male. (I’m 19 and male, BTW.) The only difference is that Coach Carter had content to water down. This doesn’t.
I don’t think CSI has jumped the shark (have you heard it’s now jump the couch, from Tom Cruise using Oprah’s sofa as a trampoline?) but I don’t watch the other incarnations.
I wonder, would you think Law and Order has jumped the shark? There’s more incarnations, Wolf even had one cancelled, which must have been a blow. What’s the difference? Does L&O have better writers, more emphasis on plot rather than characters?
I think “Jump the couch” means the point where it’s obvious somebody has gone crazy.
I haven’t seen much of Law and Order, but if there’s a difference between the two shows, I’d say it’s a combination of Jerry Orbach and the lack of stupid pop song montages and moronic camerawork/editing.
Can a show like CSI even be said to jump the shark? I don’t mean because it’s so awful, I mean because of the style.
BTW, I had never heard the term “jump the shark” before I opened this thread and haven’t the foggiest what it means in this context. I just assumed it meant “gone bad”, but it sounds like I was wrong in some subtle way.
Trial by Jury was a disaster because it took all of the fun out of L&O. Yes, the trials are cool, but they can’t hold your attention like the chase does–that’s why there’s relatively little trial time in the other L&Os. The original has more (in my view) than any other because Sam Waterston’s character is a much more captivating lawyer than the DAs and ADAs in any of the other shows. Most of the other lawyers in the other L&Os seem to be filling in the blank spaces in the courtroom, watching from the sideline as the case itself scores. The one exception is Mr. Carver (or McCarver?) in CI; but they use him in trial even less than the DAs in the other series. I can’t figure that out at all.
Generally speaking, there is more emphasis on plot. But the detective characters aren’t just standing around watching the plot develop; they also aren’t vapid young adults vying for the college demographic’s attention. The only problem, though, is that none of the characters develop at all in any of the series except SVU. They have pesronalities and backgrounds, but nothing ever really happens in their lives. The SVU detectives–especially the male lead–actually have characters that grow and change over the series.
I think the other L&O series could use more character development–but then again, the original doesn’t really need it. The cases themselves are exciting enough. So I guess that’s your answer: L&O tries to win your viewership by giving you exciting cases, while CSI tries to win your viewership by giving you BOOBIES EXPLOSIONS DRUGS MUSIC! etc.
It does mean “gone bad” - check out this link for the full explanation. “Jump the Couch” (the newer term based on the whole Tom Cruise/Oprah thing) feels to me more like when a celeb “officially” becomes a has-been than the definition as used on the linked website.
[/HIJACK]
I don’t think CSI (original) has completely jumped yet; I never liked the spin-offs, but they do still occasionally find original plots. And how can you not love “Nick in a box” (last season’s finale)?
“Jump the couch” means when a celebrity loses their shit in public. It has very little to do with “jump the shark.” It’s a confusing neologism, all the more annoying for being manufactured and promoted like a marketing campaign. I don’t think it’s a phrase that works. Google it; pretty much every reference you’ll find will be discussing it in quotes; offering a definition of it. You’ll rarely find an instance of someone just using it naturally.
Anyway, the creators of CSI were in mid-air over a shark when they gave birth to CSI. Lamest show ever.
Well, since CSI had at least one episode of someone buried in the desert in a box in one of the first two seasons (I can’t remember which), it looked like they just ran out of ideas.
I would have prefered Sara in a box, and them not finding her, but that’s just because I hate her character (Sorry Jorja!). She’s stuck in permanent adolescence, with father issues and a bad crush. Every time I see her, I think of The Police song “Don’t Stand So Close To Me.” Young teacher, the subject
Of schoolgirl fantasy
She wants him so badly
Knows what she wants to be
Inside her there’s longing
This girl’s an open page
Book marking - she’s so close now
This girl is half his age.
uh, we get it.
For me, the answer is yes. Long ago. This show is ALWAYS the same. I did like the rotation of actors in and out, because it kept things a bit fresh, even if the plotline is the same over and over. However, for me, the last straw was the self-absorbed Sam Watterson, that beady-eyed dweeb who can’t utter a line without jiggling his head. So, I’ve been away from this show for quite some time. I did hang as long as Angie Harmon was on, but to be honest, I never noticed if she could act or her head jiggled when she talked.
I think fundamentally that the L&O series’ have a better, more robust formula that allows them more lattitude to be creative. Additionally I think CSI made a mistake, a mistake that just about every situational drama makes other than L&O, by leaving the premise to explore the characters personal lives.
Caruso. Ugh. The guy is a mystery to me. How has he been able to get jobs that he is so ill-suited for? He’s not big, tough, or inspiring. He’s a skinny, little version of Richie Cunningham trying to act like the Fonz. I’m not buying it. I have yet to make it through one episode of CSI:Miami for this very reason. I just would love to see one of his co-workers (male or female) just bitch slap him. Now THAT I would tune in for.
To sum up this thread, people who never liked CSI still don’t.
Now for the point of view from somebody who still likes the program. I still like the program.
The two derivative shows were unwatchable so I stopped watching them very quickly. Have they therefore jumped the shark? How would I know? Ask somebody who used to like them.
The original CSI is a fine program. It has not jumped the shark.
Yes, I know that I should be ever-grateful to David Caruso (Or Horatio—is there a difference?) and his Magical Sunglasses the allow him to see everything with extreme clarity and give him the power to save the world. How silly of me!
I think Law & Order is at its best when the writers stop trying to write a character-driven drama and stick to writing a crisp police procedural.
As for CSI, I don’t feel like it has all that many new problems. It is an unrealistic portrayal of criminalistics, crossing frequently into science fiction. It rains far too often in Las Vegas. It’s also unrealistic as a procedural – I’m pretty sure CSIs aren’t generally brought in to do interrogations. The character’s dramas don’t generally interest me that much. Sara Sidle’s bout with unrequited love and near-temptation to one day think about becoming an alcoholic is more vaguely icky than compelling. Grissom’s breakup with the happy hooker seemed as unlikely as his relationship with her to begin with. Nick Stokes’ harrowing trauma last year apparently led him to grow a copstache, which he subsequently shaved off. Willows’ daughter is probably as lost a cause as Brass’. Fuck 'em both.
)
