Why I hate CSI

Cafe Society
61

Not 100% accurate???

Not 100% accurate???

Sheesh, I suppose next you’ll be saying that Mao wasn’t 100% capitalist, or that George W Bush isn’t 100% Democrat, or that Einstein wasn’t 100% moron. :stuck_out_tongue:

What burns me up the most about the show are the gross abuses of computer software, especially imaging. Typical CSI scene:

CSI, at computer: Caruso/Peterson, there was a security camera overseeing the parking lot, and we think it recorded our suspect.

Caruso/Peterson: Excellent. Run the “suspect finding program” over the footage and see if you find anything suspicious.

CSI, at computer: We got a hit! The computer matched the face of someone who drove through the parking lot to the FBI’s database of Really Evil People!

Caruso/Peterson: That’s too blury for me to use. Can you zoom in?

CSI, at computer: Sure!

CSI at computer punches a few buttons, and the image becomes crystal clear. Meanwhile, female firearm technician walks into the room.

Caruso/Peterson: That’s much better. It looks like there’s something sticking out of his back pocket. Can you blow it up?

CSI, at computer: No problem.

CSI at computer punches a few buttons, showing a crystal clear image of a wallet

Caruso/Peterson: Excellent. Now scan inside the wallet.

Female Firearm Technician: I pee standing up!

CSI at computer punches a few buttons, and an image of a drivers license inside the wallet appears on the screen.

Caruso/Peterson: Ah hah! It’s John Smith, and it says that he was born in Ohlarsky, Kentucky. That, and that brownish stain on his lapel leads me to conclude that he’s an evil man intent on molesting young caucasion girls! He’s currently living in a Motel 6 off route 9! Quick, every to the H2’s!!
I really hate CSI, in all its flavors.

I still watch it, occaisonally. :frowning:

62

I bought the entire first season of CSI on DVD, because I’d heard generally positive things about it, and oh man was I disappointed.

The pilot episode, in particularly, was just laughable. So there are two CSI lab techs who are both vying for the same promotion, and it’s somehow going to go to whichever one of them first solves 100 cases? And they have little tants and a whiteboard with an active count, and it ends up 99 to 99? I mean, WHAT? I mean, you thought Domino’s pizza’s “30 minutes or your pizza is free” policy led to some problems…

Oh, and then later in the first season there was an episode in which a key plot point involved a guy with an aneurysm or something who tried to open the emergency exit door of a jet plane in midflight, and all the other passengers, not wanting to be sucked out and killed, kill him. Of course, it’s impossible to open the emergency exit door of a jet plane in midflight. Granted, the other passengers might not have known that, which could have made quite an interesting denoument. But, as it turns out, the writers of the show apparently ddin’t know that either. So instead, they ended up basically spreading a rather major piece of disinformation.

63

[David Spade’s Hollywood Minute]
CSI. Ok I guess. Liked it better the first time I saw it when they called it Quincey
[/dshm]

64

The first episode of CSI I watched was Cats in the Cradle.

It’s really, really hard to suspend disbelief when someone is killed by a pen wielded by a little girl, then subsequently eaten by cats.

65

Actually, I’m glad you brought that up. There’s something about that episode that’s been nagging at me since I saw it. Spoilers ahoy!

OK, so this little girl whacks the crazy ol’ cat lady with a pen to the aorta. Gotcha. Now, I remember that they said the wound had a layer of mineral oil. “Aha,” sez they. “She was stabbed by an object kept in mineral oil to prevent rusting, like, say, heirloom cutlery.”

So they begin searching for something that fluoresces under something-or-other wavelength, since mineral oil fluoresces at that wavelength.

Gotcha. Cool.

They find it. Is it a piece of old Damascus steel cutlery? No. It’s a pen. Why was the pen covered in mineral oil? Did they ever explain?

66

Wasn’t it a hollow-core pen filled with glitter or something? Something a little girl would have?

67

Altho the science itself varys from moderately plausable to downright silly, I like how they show a scientific process. Like shoot at jello from various distances to figure out how har the victim was from the gun. Or squirt blood into a frozen chamber to see how splattering worked in a meat locker.

Brian

68

I don’t know why one watches CSI when one could easily watch American Justice or Cold Case Files or Investigative Reports on A&E. Intriquing stories, lots of drama, and they always get the science right.

69

I’ll tell you why I don’t watch real shows: they are too painful. Recently I caught a snippet about a mother convicted of trying to kill her infant son with an injection of insulin, and they had some footage of him at grade-school age. He has the mental faculties of an eight-month-old, and multiple health problems. The mother succeeded in killing his older sister. I don’t want to know about this shit.

In fact, that illuminates for me why I find myself addicted to CSI, though I sit there saying to myself, “this is so dumb!” I find police procedurals and science compelling, so it’s neat to watch a story that’s (at least ostensibly) about that, and still be able to say to myself, “What a silly show, of course no three year old really smothered his infant brother, and no father had sex with his teenage daughter - it’s all dumb fantasy.” Yes, I know generally that such things happen, but I avoid hearing about it in individual detail, and now I’m realizing CSI is perhaps my method of catharsis for such grave (if nebulous) knowledge.

It’s either that or that George Eads is hot.

As for specific nitpicks, I hate how Grissom smugly sends his underlings on vague and mysterious missions, presumably so they can learn for themselves. The problem is, in each instance he clearly knows exactly what to do and what he expects them to find, but prefers to let them fumble around for the answer. I’m sure taxpayers and victims alike would appreciate that approach.

I also really hate the character of Sara Sidle. She’s an obnoxious bitch, to coworkers and suspects alike, and I my hatred was reinforced when she immediately jumped to the “spontaneous human combustion” theory in one case. If a mere English major and housewife like myself knows the true scientific explanation for this, you’d think a CSI would.

70

Yeah, as long as he’s fully clothed! My illusions were shattered when he whipped off his shirt to reveal that he has the torso of a nine-year-old girl.

71

I tried, but can’t for the life of me get past the first case. I guess I’m not cut out for this detective work…

72

Personally I find CSI an excellent show, but I don’t know what other US TV shows you guys watch.

Over this side of the pond, for example, there are regular showings of ‘Charmed’ and ‘Baywatch Hawaii’.
The actresses are stunningly beautiful, but the plots are very simple.

By contrast CSI presents educated people in lead roles. They carry out scientific investigations (rather than have endless car chases + shootouts).
I now know what ‘a subdural hematoma’ and ‘epithelials’ are.
I have learnt about ‘blood spatter’ and blowback after an explosion.

I agree that the test results come back too quickly. Each episode is only 45 minutes and doing this keeps the dramatic tension.
Yes, CSI’s don’t usually overlap with police procedure. As someone said, CSI Las Vegas does have a regular cop character. (Apparently in Miami, all CSI’s are former police officers.)

Yes, Grissom is absorbed in his work and doesn’t do well with women. But he is an expert in his own field, giving forensic lectures to fellow investigators.
So, as has been pointed out, he gets respect from his fellow CSI’s, but not from others e.g. the Sheriff.

And it is true that the cases shown are mysterious and complex. But it would be hard to keep the TV audience if everything was straightforward. So the routine crimes are not shown.

In the commentary on the DVD’s, the producers explain how they use former CSI’s as consultants for accuracy. it is clear from these sort of comments that the show is trying to simultaneous entertain and be accurate.

I think this show is a bold concept.
Most UK TV (I assume it’s similar in the US) is formulaic and ‘safe’. The same actors come up because ‘the public likes them’.
The same situations (police, hospital, lawyer) recur.
Far more effort is spent on the makeup than the writing.
Alternatively there are the endless ‘reality’ programs. :smack:

73

lissener maybe if you take the perspective that CSI is deconstructing the police procedural genre and it is purposely bad, then you will think its brilliant.

oh I forgot :wink:

74

I like CSI: Las Vegas, it’s entertaining and the characters are quite good. Grissom took a while to grow on me though.

But today I watched “Overload” (season 2) and he said:

“Terminal velocity [supposedly for the human body, although he doesn’t specify, like it doesn’t matter] is 9.8 metres per second squared.”

:eek:

It totally destroyed the character’s credibility as a science buff.

75

On the NY version I keep waiting for the lady one to say “I couldn’t help but wonder…”.

76

I can’t help watching the show, but it is ridiculous; my three personal pet peeves:
-The crucial piece of evidence is always just too forthcoming and when they find it, they know straight away that it’s the crucial piece of evidence, as they cock their heads to one side, and gaze wistfully at their own hands putting the crucial piece of evidence into the bag.

-Their materials database is just stupidly comprehensive and insanely relational - Aha! this paint flake<electron micrograph> comes from the left shoe of a kind of wooden puppet<photograph showing puppet with paint flake falling off shoe> from a small island in Indonesia<map zoom>; this particular batch of paint<spreadsheet> was only used on three puppets<production line photo>, then (inexplicably) thrown away; of the three puppets made, only one was imported into the USA<import documents> and it was sold at…this store<map zoom>, the credit card records<spreadsheet> show that it was bought by Mr Joseph Bloggs <photo>, who is currently checked into room 309 of this hotel<map zoom>, the hotel telephone records<spreadsheet> show that he phoned this restaurant<map zoom><photo> to book this table<floorplan> for lunch today. <they glance at their watches> “Good work! Let’s join Mr Bloggs for a bite to eat, shall we?”

-The image of the fingerprint in their database is exactly the same as the one they found at the crime scene - no smudges etc - it’s the same image.

77

CSI:SDMB…tonight’s episode “Investigation into Zombie threads”

“Magnify that date there…my word! How did this happen?”

:smiley:

grey_ideas

78

I love CSI, but I don’t pretend it’s taught me anything significant about crime scene investigation (other than what luminol is). Each episode is a whodunnit or two wrapped up in a neat little package, and that’s what I enjoy about it.

79

This Old House.

And CSI:Miami should be watched for only one reason.