Slashdot Mirror
The Rise of CSI
The stars of CSI are William Petersen, 49, who plays the solitary, brooding, and obsessively scientific Las Vegas Crime Scene Investigations chief Gil Grissom, and Marge Helgenberger, who plays his sidekick Catherine Willows. They have a team of young and hunky criminalists, including a recovering gambling addict and an ex-jock who has fallen in love with a casino hooker. According to Variety, C.S.I. has become the number two drama on network TV (behind ER), with over 25 million viewers a week.
The real star of the show is science. Grissom and Willows and the other criminalists share one pronounced trait -- they believe nothing anybody tells them, and they only trust solid evidence. They depend heavily on a well-equipped crime lab and use a wide variety of scientific tools to re-construct crimes. Like X-Files, the show shoots many scenes in darkness and shadow, and has a tendency to include brief and disciplined flashes of shocking gore: the path of a bullet will be illustrated graphically, or a diseased organ, a rotting corpse or slashed artery. Computers are a mainstream tool of this crew, along with smart thinking, and laser and DNA testing.
Like X-Files, the show has a dark view of science. Science is the real hero and the real star, but it's used mostly to reveal truth in sad circumstances. The CSI criminalists work in a depressing world where they nonetheless seek the raw truth, and believe in the ability of science to uncover it. Grissom is an older David Duchovny. He has a lonely life, a corrupt boss, endemic authority problems, and absolutely no patience for the stupid, dishonest or lazy. He shares another trait with Mulder -- he has to deal with the fact that in this world, the good guys don't always win.
It's fitting that TV's most intelligent drama follows one of its shlockiest programs -- Survivor. It would seem to be a foolish pairing, an idiotic broadcast followed by one so cerebral. Together the two shows cover the spectrum of contemporary TV. But while Survivor seems to become more unbearable by the week. CSI, already good, is getting better all the time -- gutsy, smart and inventive.
I have yet yo see this program is it really as good as they say???
They do incredibly clever, incredibly observant things. They make huge logical leaps.
We don't make the same leaps, so they have to explain them all, and find some excuse to do so; this gets tired after a while, when sombody performs a bit of a monologue - they may as well turn to the camera and say 'And for the folks at home...'
..and fp..
Yes, CSI does give viewers an appreciation for those dedicated public servants who sift through police evidence. It has also spoken out against rape, drug abuse, domestic violence, incest and violent crime. But it creates an unintended quandary: Should families entertain themselves by ingesting graphic images of medical autopsies, brutalized bodies, blood-spattered sets and decomposing corpses?
Does anyone know if this has been syndicated for showing over here in the UK? I've not heard of it, but as a lot of my favourite prime-time shows wind down, it'd be nice to see some worthy replacements appear. Sounds Cool.
CSI is clearly the best looking show on TV. I think that is part of its attractiveness. How many scientists do you know who look like Marg Helgenberger and Jorja Fox?
They might be geeks, but they're Hollywood geeks.
It is by far the best shot HDTV on tv right now. Pitty more people can't see it that way.
Goddammnit Jon, isn't there enough confusion over the correct use of "its" and "it's" without you going around adding apostrophes like they're going out of style?
Repeat after me: "IT'S" MEANS "IT IS"!!!
What most television executives today miss, is that shows that are POPULAR (ie, get good ratings) always have something UNIQUE about them.
Examples: Gilligan's Island, Seinfeld, M*A*S*H, The Beverly Hillbillies, I Love Lucy- they all have something unique about them, whether it's a crazy background plot, the first successfuly show starring a woman, or a show about 'nothing'.
It seems that all of the sitcoms that are coming out nowadays are just copies of each other. Shows that have been on the longest now (Simpsons, Drew Carey, Frasier) seem to still be popular, but are definitely losing their charm as writers struggle to find new story lines. But these shows all had something definitely unique about them, and that's what made them popular.
Airing shows that are trying to be based on 'real life' just come off as copycats of Friends or Seinfeld, and they definitely don't duplicate the success of those shows.
Want to know why shows are popular? They have a theme. Whether it's the Sopranos with the mafia theme, West Wing with it's presidential theme, ER with it's hospital theme, or NYPD Blue with it's cop theme, these shows are popular because they interest people.
Throwing another "The Show" out on TV won't captivate people to watch.
But give us something unique, and television audiences will eat it up.
The show was rejected 25 times by television executives before someone on CBS realized its potential.
I programmed my television to skip over Fox two years ago.
The characters are two dimensional and they also sum-up a complete forensic case in one episode. I think were they to spread a case over several episodes it'd be much better. Prime Suspect and Silent Witness were two programs that managed to do things in a more gritty way. It comes across as as a cross-between Scrubs and Columbo.
e4 e5
Quote: "Considering it's setting -- Las Vegas -- and it's subject matter..."
I hate it when people spell the word 'its' wrong! Especially people that claim to be smart, like Katz here. Look... if the word is posessive, there is no apostrophe!! How hard is it to remember that?
Sorry for the rant... that shit just bothers me...
She may be an ex-stripper, but she's hardly some goggling piece of eye-candy who mooches around after Grissom all day, telling him how brilliant he is. She's gutsy and smart in her own right. Jeez......
...is definately Smallville.
:)
I had no idea kryptonite had sooooo many uses, the science on THAT show is top notch.
BTW, getting fp on a Katz article is easy, I think 99% of the slashcrowd filter him out. Hi Jon
put the what in the where?
You've got be kidding with the insanely poor grammar. As one of the regular columnists with some supposed role in representing the thoughtful tech community, could you make a tad more of an effort?
"it's" means "it is."
"its" is similar to "my" or "your".
its setting. its subject matter. etc...
I just discovered CSI a few months ago, thanks to my Tivo 'recommending' it. It's a great show. The only thing I don't like about the characters is their tendency to use their authority to push people around. I've encountered enough authoritarian jerks that it rubs me the wrong way.
Like every crime show the DA doesn't actually investigate. Neither does the Crime Scene Analyst. More garbage for stupid people. This is like having a show where the DBA also is the main sales person at conventions. Possible but extremely unlikely.
I'm all for using clever scientific methods to knock off troublesome momos, but using stuff that has been unobtainable for twenty years stretches credibility a bit. While that bothers me personally, a worse possibility is causing people who aren't knowledgable (like network TV watchers) to want our government to institute even nastier safety restrictions to solve problems that have actually been fixed for decades.
Ok, it's a nit, but it bugs me.
* Old Farts Club
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
I saw CSI (the episode with the animated bullet trajectories) on British TV only last week. A laudable effort to make science accessible to the mainstream, but it did seem to me that the "mainstream" they were aiming for must have the attention span of a goldfish.
The Miami Vice comparison is particularly apt - lots of jump cuts etc. The CG animation is sometimes overused (and the animation of a bullet striking a lung had me rofl).
That said, much of the basic science is sound. I particularly liked the admission that while a $10k electronic nose was very cool when it came to identifying perfume residues, the same results could be had with a bottle of adsorbant and an existing benchtop gas chromatograph).
Anyway - I'll be watching it again to see if they can get the balance of plot/science/graphics right. If nothing else, it is nice to see an attempt to incorporate some properly researched, hard science into a mainstream show. Better they labour the explanations a bit than dumb it down at the expense of veracity.
"E pur si muove!" - attributed to Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
...that this is done by a professional writer.
Mr. Katz uses the word "it's" six times in the first paragraph, twice correctly, and four times incorrectly. Didn't they learn you nuthin in writing school?
(Yes, I know it should be "It's" in the subject line. This device is called irony.)
and it's near total absence of traditional TV fare like sex or shoot-em-ups
What a load of shit! Have you even watched the program? Just because we don't get to see the main characters fucking and shooting people, doesn't mean that when the ex-dancer chick bends over and shows her cleavage the show isn't selling sex. When Grisolm has a wet dream about how a bullet tears through the skull of the victim, isn't that violent enough?
Rant time:
Can't you fucking people learn the difference between "its" and "it's"? Go here and buy a mother-fucking clue before Dr. Dictionary gets medieval on your ass.
I'm rather surprised to see CSI as an actual news item on Slashdot. Usually Slashdot reports brilliant happenings in the world, CSI is probably one of the lamest shows available right now, and I'll tell you why.
First of all, a "total absence of traditional TV fare"? Don't make me laugh. Whenever these guys talk about anything scientific, whether it be a virus in some ones system, a fork going through their body or what have you, it is *always* accompanied by CG showing *exactly* what they are talking about. There is nothing left to the viewers imagination. The directors assume an extremely unintelligent audience and feel obligated to visually show every single theory.
This being said, it really takes away from the show. For just 5 seconds you are taken out of the story and handed some over exaggerated CG of a bullet going through someone's arm, or a fork going through a chest, etc. Then you're popped right back into the story again! It ruins the continuity of the show.
Most intelligent drama? Do not be so quick to loosen your toung. This show hand-holds you through each episode. X-files leaves much to the viewers interpretation, CSI does just the opposite.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
We have seen like one season here in Denmark.
It is the one american TV series that I am watching (back in the old days it was X-Files, and I saw Voyager at some point as well).
I can only agree that this is a winner.
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Quincy, M.E. as one of the precursors to CSI. As far as I can recall, Quincy represented the first "detective" on television to use medical and forensic techniques to solve crimes.
By the way -- No mention of Quincy would be complete without a reference to his sidekick, Sam Fujiyama, played by Robert Ito.
The Big News Page
Katz can't even get the actors names correct.
/., you guys could at least get someone who uses proper grammer and actually does research before writing a review.
It's Marg, not Marge...and it's pronounced as it's spelled. Like 'cargo' without the O on the end.
I'm all for reviews, but if i'm going to have to start paying for
Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
For example, in the hockey episode they shined a light (and viewed thru a filter) and concluded that there had been 30 different women (or was it men) sex partners there. OK, people with active sex lives are likely to wash their sheets from time to time! Even if the sheet isn't washed, I suppose a DNA test could figure out that semen was from different sources but how can some kind of fancy light?
There are many other things I doubt in the show too. This isn't just a minor quibble because the whole show rests on the forensic evidence. Since a fun show.
Possesives DO have an apostrophe.
"Its" just happens to be an exception, like His and Hers.
"Sarah's shop" Or "Sunday's events" are grammatically correct usages of the apostrophe.
You cannot compare that to Miami Vice! Miami Vice had the best mood in it. Great music, great episodes, good acting. It's the most classic police TV-serie.
CSI needs some kind of background plot, something like a super smart serial killer who they can never catch. They have recently started to develop the relationships between the characters, but I don't think this is enough to sustain the show long term.
Chris
Ah, c'mon, he uses it correctly half of the time.
I hate that show it is so NOT geeky. It's probably what hollywood thinks is geeky. I fscking hate that show.
...but some of the shows on TLC and the like such as Forensic Detectives are far superior. They look at real cases and over the course of the half hour show can take you over the investigative steps even if they lasted a year+. In addition, they have no need to gloss over certain details or make something look cool my doing a computer generated graphic. For example, the bullet pierced the lung is sufficient explanation without showing an animated picture of the same lung deflating. Check it out sometime.
Now, CSI almost never goes after any thing "larger" - it's almost always just some guy offing some other guy. Also, the science is almost as atrocious as Taco's spelling. On one show they made the following bloopers:
In none of the above cases was the error necessary to the plot - in fact the lightning goof would have been far better played out had Grissom said, "No, actually that is a common misbelief. What protects you is the shielding action of the metal car body. If lightning can jump thousands of feet of air gap, what makes you thing an inch of rubber WITH METAL WIRES IN IT would stop it?"
Furthurmore, the show has to have this BS conflict between Grissom and the sherrif (after all, one rule of modern TV is that ALL AUTHORITY FIGURES ARE ASSHOLES). Again, on Quincy, the chief of police and the head of the M.E. department all were foursquare behind Quincy.
Plus, do we have to have all these stupid shots of what the investigators think happened? "Hmmm. The bullet came through this window and hit him in the head " (CUT: blue-tinged shot of fake bullet breaking fake glass and impacting on fake head).
www.eFax.com are spammers
I have to say that seeing the results of evil is a whole lot more wholesome than watching evil being committed. People MUST see the results of evil or they will forget. They just don't have to see it taking place. So the decomposing bodies, the purtifying flesh, the gross obscenity that results from evil should be known by all. Don't let the kids see a glorificaton of good vs evil or just evil vs evil (in the case of drug wars, gang wars, gangs vs corrupt cops/system/the man). Show them the grim reality.
... here overdoes the Flash, too. Especially if you're on a modem.
"E pur si muove!" - attributed to Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
If you think it looks beautiful in SDTV, wait till you see it in HDTV, its an amazing picture quaility, with an great story line.
I started watching it only because it was in HDTV, now I'm hooked and love it
`find / -name "*your_base*" -exec chown us:us {} \;`
It gets a bit sick when 6 of about 27 thread starter posts (or thereabout) are either bitching about Katz grammer or about Katz in general, tho half of those were posted anonymous.
0xC3
I always saw CSI as successful for pretty much the same reasons as Law and Order. It requires a low emotional commitment but a high intellectual commitment. They're both about systems first and the people within them second. There is a demographic (a lot of them work with computers) that eats that up.
My only complaint would be the same as a bunch of other people here, they play is real fast and loose with the science. Often it has nothing to do with a plot point, it's just poorly researched.
I understand there are crazy time constraints on network television, they aren't made of time. I would suggest hiring a 'resident geek' to read scripts somewhere on the way out and suggest 'technical' fixes to move their science more into reality. I think it would really help the show, and it would give them access to a world of wierd science stuff they aren't getting now. And make it more crediable ta boot.
People who's heads are full of wierd science are a dime a dozen down at the local comic store (or here on slashdot), pick one up..
The last two lines of the intro I caught the other night, while investigating a (TBD) murder that occurred during a beer league hockey game:
"Hockey sure can be a brutal sport."
"Yeah, it can be murder."
I mean, c'mon. 'Nuff said. I sure didn't see much special about the show, tho I'll admit it's well shot.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Too bad; it's a show that glorifies geeks ("You were never an athlete." "I'll have you know, in high school, I was captain of the chess squad.") and science, and often has good mysteries.
I'm still trying to figure why, so many Thursday nights, we end up eating dinner at home at 9 p.m., just as the first corpse appears.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I watched a few episodes of CSI last season and gave up in disgust. While the science angle is nice to see, the characters of the show are ridiculous. Since when do scientists go and interrogate suspects?!? This happened on two consecutive episodes and that was enough for me.
-1, Redundant
Fox tried to follow up the success of The X-Files with Millenium which persisted for a few seasons only because the network wanted to remain on good terms with Chris Carter. Millenium also tried to follow the niche of a gory TV series set in the present time with something resembling police work to investigate crimes. Why didn't it have the success of CSI--because Fox let Carter get away with not following the formula used in The X-Files. For The X-Files Carter carefully chose the young and attractive Gillian Anderson and elevated her role to be equal to Duchovney's. Carter was not forced to do this either for Millenium or for Harsh Realm. In the past decade US television SF has swung decisively towards recognizing the importance of having hot young females as the stars, similar to how the Winter Olympics is really about figure skating and the Summer Olympics are about gynmastics, and similar to the last successful TV Western set in the past being Dr. Quinn: Medicine Woman. Note that James Cameron created for Fox Dark Angel which follows Cameron's typical pattern of having a strong female character as the star. Unfortunately Fox failed to follow the formula again--almost no network SF other than the Star Trek franchise can build a large audience if the show is set in the future. At least Voyager management made the correct decision of introducing the 7 of 9 character in a skintight catsuit to save the show.
Almost all bombs can be explained by not following the formula. CBS's The Fugitive failed because CBS failed to follow the formula that the lead character should have some sort of superhero edge. The loner who comes to town and fixes things decades ago rapidly morphed in being a superhero or angel, not an ordinary guy. It would have been even better had the star been made female with martial arts ability.
I agree that the show has some pretty cool visuals describing how the crimes happen, but I can't stand all the non-verbal communication.
Every epesode is full of deep, all-knowing stares between team members with subtle head-tilts and squints. Gimme a break, SAY SOMETHING!
If Slashdot is where the spelling-challenged go when they die, I'm in heaven.
I got interested in it half way through the first season, now I look forward to it every week. CBS better not kill a very good thing anytime soon. Keep your hands off of it Les Moonves.
who is the sherrif? is it jim brass? if so i thought him and grissom got along.
I pretty much gave up on CSI after one show that was incredibly inaccurate and unscientfic.
It was the one with the construction worker who was electrocuted, fell off a building and high iron content in his blood.
The first error was when they said he was electrocuted because the ground plug on the tool he was using was sabotaged so the Ground Fault Cirrcuit Interrupter the tool was plugged in to wouldn't work. Wrong, wrong, wrong! A GFCI works fine without a ground. It just compares the current going out the hot with the current returning through the neutral, and if they're not the same there's a problem and it switches off. That's why you can install GFCIs in older homes without a ground in the wiring.
Then they determined he had excessive iron in his blood since his was conductive. Huh? They didn't even bother to check how conductive normal blood is. They just found out it was conductive and they concluded he had too much iron. Anyone with any basic chemistry would fully expect normal blood to be conductive. Not very scientific.
Notice how the 50-something main character resembles CBS's 50-something audience, and how impatient he can be with the headphone-wearing kids in the crimelab. Obviously it's meant to re-enforce their viewers' perspective, rather than challenge it. I always felt like the show was geared towards my grumpy uncle Ed, or like it's a Simpsons parody of a CBS show. The fact that it concentrates more on the forensics than, say, a character's fight with the bottle makes it a good tech show. But I do get the feeling sometimes I'm not the target audience.
--- Ned!
Grammar, not grammer. Grammar! GRAMMAR! Repeat after me, GRAMMAR!#%
That show is the most idiotic piece of drivel I have seen in years. Watched it twice to make sure it was really as stupid as I thought it was the first time.
It's Marg not Marge. (What is this, the Simpsons? Hey, now that I think about it, I think the cast of CSI should come on the Simpsons for a 'murder investigation' that happens at the Simpsons home. Much hilarity will ensue.)
No, unlike X-Files, if a room is dark and has a light switch, CSI will flip it on instead of getting out the flashlights. I haven't noticed any penchant for filming in unusually dark places to enhance the mood. (Other than when they've got the purple light out looking for semen.)
"And like that
I don't mean this negatively; I'm sure you're right since it's just another TV show. I'm genuinely curious as to what sorts of facts or "unobtainalbe" things you're talking about...
Sure many of you posting are slamming for details on this or that. Or that a weekly script written of all ages to enjoy isn't the level of classic novel, who cares. Its good entertainment, that happens to bring some science to people who wouldn't be reading Scientic American. I would bet a lot of the people complaining just don't like TV in general. Fine, but for those who of us who been bit-banging for twelve hours a day and just want to veg' a bit, CSi is good entertainment.
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that Katz loves this show. Katz, like most of the rest of the US, seems incapable of using logic in any meaningful way.
Now, by way of introduction...
My name is Zandr, and I'm an HDaholic. At a recent event at our local PBS affiliate, I pointed out that if they put their HD camera on the roof, we'd probably watch the feed.
And CSI is beautifully shot and produced. I keep an episode around just for the interstitial flyovers of the Strip.
That's why it pains me to say that I simply can't watch CSI. I actually find forensics fascinating. I don't have a terribly strong stomach when it comes to things organic, so I think I'll stick to my current career, but my TiVo is usually madly collecting all the forensics specials off Discovery, et al. You can almost measure the production cycle of CSI by watching Discovery, and then seeing how long it takes before the same technique gets used on CSI. (I get about 8 weeks by this method.)
The problem is that CSI makes these incredible leaps of logic. One that comes to mind: They found peanut shells on a pair of shoes, and immediately concluded that the owner worked a concession stand. I'm sorry, have these people never been to a proper bar, where there's an inch of peanut shells on the floor at all times?
And then there's the downright bad science. There's one episode where they figure out where a boat drifted by setting up a washtub and a fan in the lab. Give me a break; throwing dice would be more accurate. Or "you look left when you're remembering, you look right when you're making it up." Polygraphs are pretty flakey devices, but now that we can just watch your eyes we're all set.
My wife watches it, but it's only really watchable with a PVR, since she has to pause the show every three minutes to ask why I just recoiled at the last leap of logic or horrible science.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
this is going right to the negative numbers, but I haven't posted to /. in a few years, and wanted to start trolling right away.
.sig for an idea how long it's been since I went away!
See the
-- --
Stay Tuned Next Week For...
The Adventures of Open Souce Man!
(with Natalie Portman and her Aibo)
it's - contraction for "it is"
Gosh, what a panegyric (look it up) for a better class of crap. Would you mind telling us all whose employ you are in? Most advertisers have to pay for space on /.
Have a nice day.
and it's one of the best looking HDTV shows on the air IMO.
More than likely, it is located in a high corner of your remote control. If you press it in the presence of your family, they can no longer entertain themselves by ingesting graphic images of medical autopsies, brutalized bodies, blood-spattered sets and decomposing corpses.
Nice troll though, regardless.
The idea is a good one for a very specific audience, but CSI should not do that because it would be horrible in syndication.
You couldn't sell it properly.
It works with dedicated fan bases like soaps and sci-fi, but is bad for other things.
...but I don't "get" CSI. We've currentely got the pleasure of enjoying season 2 here in Blighty, and it's watchable. What I don't find is anything that engages me; something to lift it above the "because nothing else is on" status. I quite happily watch the show without knowing their names. There's old bloke, chisel-faced guy, beautiful young girl, mature blonde woman, afro guy... This is probably the main reason as to why I don't much like it :) I can't get into the characters; I'm not invited in like the X-Files or Buffy. There seems to be little identifying each character from the other. ;)
The pop-science is pretty sweet, though
Or one can have a less clueful sidekick to explain it all to.
The main actor, Wil Petersen, was very similar and great in 'Manhunter'. Even his character name is similar.
Hmmm... lets see...
Wil Graham, captures Hannibal, captures Tooth-Fairy, then changes his name, moves to Vegas, and becomes Wil Grissom.
Don't get me started:
He has a lonely life, a corrupt boss, endemic authority problems, and absolutely no patience for the stupid, dishonest or lazy.
endemic Pronunciation Key (n-dmk) adj.
Prevalent in or peculiar to a particular locality, region, or people: diseases endemic to the tropics. See Synonyms at native.
Ecology. Native to or confined to a certain region.
CSI is gorgeous in HD - the night shots of Vegas from the air, with all the color; the dark exteriors and interiors which would wash into a blur on a regular TV; the closeups of evidence, etc are wonderful in HD. HD does such a good job on color and low-light reproduction compared to NTSC that people who see it at my house are amazed, and CSI is a great example. I think the transfers or camera work has gotten better too since it started.
And everything said in the article is true - it's a riviting drama where science is often the star, for more so than the old detective-story-ish Quincy was.
I'm shocked it ever made it to the screen, and hope it'll be there for a Long Time.
The three-part series dealing with the middle aged men showing up dead in bathtubs of apparent suicide was great. I won't spoil the ending but it was perfect, the twists along the way were truly shocking, and the good guys did not entirely win.
We may debate the validness of some of the science on the show (I take issue with many of their unpossible audio tricks) but story lines and twists like this trump some of the best we've seen on The X-Files.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
Who gives a rats ass about some stupid tv show? Wheres your post about Ally McBeal? fucking idiot.
I hate to say this with all the people trashing the quality of the Science of the show, but I love it. Usually the errors aren't so blatant that they distract me too much. I really enjoy it though. Katz OTOH, I doubt has really watched it. His write-up sounds an awful lot like the one I read in TV Guide at the Convienant store. I think that he then added in his "notes" from the last show that was on. Yes, Warric is a recovering gambling addict, and in that epasode, he did take a fancy to a dancer in a casino. That was it, the plot ended there. She is no longer in the show. It's a lot like watching the show from last season where the man died in Grissom's hands, and the blood was litterly on his hands. A priest had talked to him ealier in the show. As he now looking at returning to Catholicism? No, he isn't.
Oh well, another Katz flame. At least it's my first!
--Josh
There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
Like X-Files, the show has a dark view of science.
The X-Files has very little to do with real science. Vampires? Weird implants? Alien conspiracies? Pseudoscience doesn't equal science.
The CSI criminalists work in a depressing world where they nonetheless seek the raw truth, and believe in the ability of science to uncover it. Grissom is an older David Duchovny.
I hope you meant Agent Mulder. David Duchovny is an actor.
>>and its near total absence of traditional
>>TV fare like sex
I guess Katz must be a eunic. It's the only explanation for his comment. How many times in one show can they show Marg Helgenberger in a low cut, tight shirt, bend over, exposing the majority of her 'hidden-assets' to the camera?
Please don't take my statement as a critique of the show---it's not. I like the show, just the way it is!
I don't know what dream world you were in when you saw DD5.1 kick in during CSI. CBS has never passed 5.1 sound on their HD feed.
My Grandma watches is. . . .
.
:) )
Heck when I visit her I watch it with her, along with Law and Order (whatever version may be on) and Quincy.
(I happen to like Quincy)
I always categorized it in the same category as all of the other various murder mystery shows, just a bit more gruesome and with a bit more technical accuracy here and there.
Of course I also like Murder She Wrote, so. . .
(And I loved Father Dowling Mysteries. . . . hmmm. For a Science Fiction fan I have some odd tastes in TV.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Wow. The NY Times runs a piece on CSI, and then hours after publication, Jon Katz pens his own essay on the show. What a coincidence.
Every episode of C.S.I. I have seen is just as titillating as any other American TV program. In one episode, prostitutes are killing clients by poisoning their nipples, which is shown over and over in SI swimsuit-style soft core. The hero can't just tell the cops this; no, he has to "investigate" this personally and in "private". Another episode has the hot chick investigating a semen stain and having to find a "matching sample"....
For that matter, why does everyone on this program, even the skid row prostitutes, look like a fashion model?
I agree with Jon Katz on something?
*cry*
Who is Jon Katz, and why does he have such infantile taste in film and TV? It seems that everytime there is pro-US propaganda thinly disguised as "entertainment" he is there, attempting to convince us that it is not utter and complete drivel, which is apparent to anyone with a brain and half an education. Example: Jon Katz's ridiculous review of "Blackhawk Down" and "Behind Enemy Lines" which were both US government propaganda films designed to promote patriotism in the wake of September 11th. Jon Katz consistently picks the worst propaganda films and TV shows. Either he really likes this second-rate military propaganda and is completely moronic, or it's his job to spew this crap on slashdot, which traditionally has been very critical of the US government and its policies. Next he'll be trying to convince us that "The Agency" is a good show, and that the CIA is a bunch of brave heroes keeping the world safe from terrorism when the historical record actually shows that they've been one of the largest supporters of state sponsored terrorism in the world in places such Indonesia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, and Angola, to name a few. So Mr. Katz, please spare me your pathetic reviews. This American can think for himself.
I love how unreal the show is.
Whenever they need to solve a case, they just make up something. For example, did you know that every e-mail is tagged with the street address it was sent from? Neither did I, but since it was on CSI, it must be true!
It's fitting that TV's most intelligent drama follows one of its shlockiest programs -- Survivor.
Just because the Survivor producers rejected your application is no reason to take pot shots at it.
And if you find the show so schlocky and unbearable, why do you watch it every week?
It's not the voltage that will kill you, it's the amperage.
And while yes the science in the show really stinks sometimes...it's better than some shows on TV and worse then others. Atleast it hasn't turned into a sitcom yet.
*shudder*
Om, nomnomnom...
As a resident of Vegas, what I find amusing is the portrayal of the CSI investigators as highly sophisticated in knowledge and technology. Vegas police are not bumbling Clouseau's, but they are nowhere near as well equipped or knowledgeable as what is depicted in the show. Fortuneately, for those of us who live here, criminals in this community tend to be rather stupid so catching them doesn't require that much investigation.
What low-level CBS exec managed to get Katz to write this drivel about more drivel? If I wanted a "review" of typical network crap, I'd go to the Entertainment Tonight website.
There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
She spells it Marg, not Marge, and her full name is Mary Margaret Helgenberger. As for a lack of sex, Marg sure spends a lot of time bending forward into the camera while wearing a low-cut blouse. Not that I'm complaining.
In the vein of there being nothing new under the sun. Both the X-Files and CSI appear to me like skewered retakes on Holmes and Watson. No matter the garnish I prefer the original.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
is that people like my mom and sister watch this show and think it's a complete duplicate of real science. In fact, I've had conversations about forensic science and heard the quote "well, you know, on CSI they <insert bullshit dramatic device passing for science here>."
/. crowd may be a bit more savvy than all that, but your average american isn't.
I am very weary of shows like this because they seem to dupe 99.9% of the american public into actually believing half of this shit is real scientific technique. The
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
It is always entertaining to see how close TV isn't to real life by asking someone in the trade. My friends wife is a Forensic Investigator and the logical thing for me to do was bait her with CSI. I remarked that I just BET it was her favourite show. That proved to be a mistake. For the next half an hour I was treated to a torrent of slagging off about the shows portrayal of Forensic science. The effect on the average citizen's expectations of what is really done, and what evidence is required has also become twisted. She can't go to any crime scene without being asked if she wants to "Vacuum the carpet for fibres". She has even been asked if she wanted to DNA test a turd some reprobate had conveniently left in a bucket at the scene of the crime. She much preferred when people didn't think they knew her job better than her.
Watched it for 10 minutes. The "intelligent dialogue" everybody raves about struck me as trite.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Did anyone else read the headline and think this might be about the Church of Scientology, Inc.?
:)
Maybe after all the legal kerfuffle where Rob pulled that document they just don't want to offend them again, but I must say Scientology stories have been thin on the ground since then.
It's a shame -- I like a good conspiracy theory, I do, and when you're talking about the Scientologists, *nothing* that anyone says about them can be dismissed out of hand. Billion-year contracts? Aliens executed by leaving them on exploding volcanoes? Sure, whatever....
Besides, the more people who can be warned away from them, the better... it's worse than Amway, even!
deus does not exist but if he does
Does anyone know why this is being shown on Channel 5 in the uk if it is supposed to be successful? How can they afford to import this? Where are they getting the money considering their only revenue is advertising and in order for that to work, someone actually has to watch their channel? I thought good american stuff was only shown on channel 4, and 5 just got the really crap films (atomic train, and anything with the words delta or force in it), porn, and 'the worlds x'est x's' Now i am confused. I think the mpaa should come and investigate this channel for copy-right infringement ;)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Can someone, ANYONE, tell me the name of the theme music?
:-)
Everytime I heard it I say: "I know that, what the hell is it?"
I'd really like to have an answer..
Wiwi
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"
What ever happenned to cop shows that aren't so straight forward. I can't understand a word they say on nypd blue, except for 'anyways', but at least things aren't that straight forward, and people are pretty mixed up too. Or 'The Sweeney', may he rest in peace. Or 'Twin Peaks', now they were my kind of people, and didn't that take a bit of detective work to solve.
Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?
It's funny how katz don't even mention the fly geekgirl Sara played by Jorja Fox. She's a lonely geek who is the CSI computer expert, and in one episode even uses email headders to track down a lead on a killer.
A year ago tomorrow, Katz posted an article about CSI. I guess the ol' idea bin is running dry for him or something. That or they're paying him by the article.
They're putting dimes in the hole in my head to see the change in me.
Speaking of intelligent police shows...
It is truly shameful that the brilliant and inspired Homicide: Life on the Street never got the acclaim it deserved while it was around. Even more tragic is how memories of the show are fading. If it isn't in syndication where you are, REQUEST IT!
i have my ReplayTV set up to tape a few programs, and CSI has been top on the list since its debut. the rest of the space on my upgraded 80gig drive is taken up by various hbo programs, a couple movies, buffy, angel, smallville, er and xfiles zones. but CSI is the one show i watch religiously. =)
i've gotten my parents and many coworkers watching it as well. if you aren't currently watching it, why not, nothing else is on at 9pm Thurs...
those inside-the-body bullet tracking scenes are straight out of Three Kings, pretty cool stuff.
--w
E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
Everyone that modded this twit up is a fucking moron. Here is an experiment- go hook up your car to an electrical outlet, stand next to your car, and then grap your car. Oh, wait, your dead (well, probably not, but a high voltage line would kill you).
His second point is moot- your blood is conductive, whether it be from the minerals in the blood or the hemoglobin. So some writer got the specifics wrong! Wow, this is a TV show, not a science show, jackass.
3rd point- I must have missed that episode, since it doesn't spark any memories.
If you want utter science, go watch TLC or Discovery, not CBS (NBC?, ABC?). You are one of those people that will bitch when someone gets the molting period of snakes wrong, aren't you?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Not a bad thing, except that they're not actually pushing `pure science'.
They're only pushing materialism - as if it were the be-all and end-all, the totality of science - in the guise of total, pure science. Materialism can only take you as far as you currently believe `reality' extends, which can seem to be a long way but is pretty limiting in the grand scheme of things (think Copernicus).
In the end the only proof of her position a materialist actually has is her faith: exclusive proofs are generally impossible, and one good counterexample can break generations of hereinbefore `irrefutable' beliefs.
The big myth underlying materialism is that you can completely understand and control the universe around you, which is again only true in a strictly limited degree, and in reality is just arrogance. Anyone who proclaims total control of their life, to say nothing of the lives of others, is simply displaying the limits of their knowledge (from another POV, their ignorance) in public.
There, have I used enough emotive words now? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Maybe I have this wrong, but where I live they recently showed a rerun of the pilot and it seems that Captain Jim Brass was head at CSI before Grissom. If this is so, then why oh why does grissom have to explain to him how something seemingly irrelevant is actually a potential clue. Isn't Brass supposed to be a trained CSI investigator?
And don't even mention the CSI guys going making arrests, interrogating perps or Grissom paying a visit to the main suspect in a serial murder case.
Considering its setting -- Las Vegas -- and its subject matter - decomposing pigs, corpse-sucking larvae, transgender serial killers, serial killer make-up artists, murderous and skate-wielding hockey fiends -- and its near total absence of traditional TV fare like sex or shoot-em-ups, this show shatters conventional wisdom about what people want to see on TV.
How exactly does this "shatter conventional wisdom about what people want to see on TV?"
This is exactly what TLC has become: sensationalistic, dumbed-down crap, more of a cross between the X files seasons of late and Jerry Springer than actual writing.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
what gets me is the "stop the plot whilst I get on my soapbox about something"
speeches - for example, the hockey episode had the obligatory "testoterone is destiny" speech
and some other smarmy yet forgettable diatribe via dialogue...
and the "questioning" of the suspect (w/o an attorney present - smooth move, Mr. Science)
was more like "Grissom explains it all for you"
it seems, especially lately, that it's a
hook the geeks, show the babes, and wrap it up kinda show - not that I mind
it's either that or Will and Grace...
Jon Katz's (note the apostrophes, please!) latest ramble seems to be inspired by a recent article at the Laissez Faire Electronic Times: Show Me the Evidence, by Russell Madden
Some comparisons between the texts might prove instructive:
LFET article: "graphic visual recreations of what happens to a human body when, for example, a bullet slams through a chest wall"
JonKatz: "the path of a bullet will be illustrated graphically"
as well as:
LFET article: ""Follow the evidence" is the dictum he drills into his coworkers. How the investigators "feel" about the clues they uncover does not matter"
JonKatz: "Grissom and Willows [...] believe nothing anybody tells them, and they only trust solid evidence."
Maybe Jon had a little help on his Slashdot writing assignment from Junis in Afghanistan......
As I recall they didn't have an "exact" number but were sort of taking side bets and guessing as to the numbers. I'm not sure they ever confirmed exactly how many people had been there but it's possible they were exaggerating.
:-( Heh, then again if you're O.J. you can hire the best to find out when the cops don't follow procedure or taint the evidence.... Yeah, I think he was guilty but if I'd been on the jury seeing how the police had apparently mucked with the evidence I'd have had to let him go too!
I've used a black light to show urine (pets!) on carpet but never tried it with any other substance. I suppose it's possible the light would show semen etc. as a different color. Even using the UV on my carpet I sometimes find things that aren't urine from a pet accident so I guess nearly any chemical might change the way the material is seen. If you're looking at bedsheets then whatever funky stain shows up is probably going to be semen etc..
As for changing the sheets... Yeah, I seem to recall they made a big deal out of the guy's place being neat (fuzzy memory). If so then why weren't the sheets washed more often? The girl was pregnant and far along enough that she knew it so figure at least a couple of weeks. He didn't wash his sheets for WEEKS?! Umm, yeah that's kind of weird. It's not like the stains don't show up without the benefit of UV either. I don't know about you but sleeping in a bed polka dotted with "stains" would creep me out - those seets would be in the trash or the laundry ASAP....
FWIW - I LIKE this show. I've missed VERY few episodes and while the science sometimes seems stretched I still like it. What I wonder about mostly though is how these folks get to spend so much time on each case. The lab guy is always bitching about being so backed up yet these people work on maybe 2 cases a night and are the "night shift". What, Day Shift accounts for so much work that the lab guy can hardly keep up? I can only hope that someone will have that kind of time if I get accused of something to save my ass. Chances are good that they won't
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Not quite like the Profiler show but they DID have a crime that spanned SEVERAL episodes. It took them three shows at least to catch this guy and it was a pretty tangled web by the time they were done. It started with a "suicide" that had the person telling the world why they were doing it on audio tape. It was pretty cool IMO but I'd agree they need to do it more often. Migh tbe interesting if they pulled some of their story lines from real crimes too.
As for relationships - yes those are starting to finally form! What I think is interesting is how for instance one guy is big into bugs, another is awesome with recorded tapes, ad how some are good at other things - but they've never really spelled his out. I've seen them talk about how Grism (sp?) is the big bug guy but no one has mentioned anything about how this one guy got so good with audio and video. He's a musician and apparently gifted but no other reason has yet been given. (shrug) Hopefully that will develop with time...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I got the impression that Katz doesn't like the work of Bruckheimer too much (which is totaly OK). But CSI is from JB. Now why doesn't Katz mention Bruckheimer in his review, is it because he'd rather not mention him because he likes the show and is in denial about JB's involvment, or because he simply doesn't know?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
He mentions a guy who was into SPORTS falling in love with a hooker not with the SINGER. The white guy who was into sports DID fall for a hooker. He even did forensic tests on her blouse in order to prove that the guy spit on her. I believe it was an assualt case and she was being charged (missed the beginning) for attacking the security guy. Turns out the security guy provoked her by spitting on her etc..
:-P
Anyway, he ends up looking like he's fallen for her but ends up not getting involved at the very end. She kisses him and off he goes on his merry way. Katz refers to more than just this last episode
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
While it seems to appeal to the intellectual side, and to forbear the sex-and-violence that drives most popular television, it's really just another take on death-porn. Yeah, there's the science and all, but mostly it's about horror and a perverted fascination with all the different ways serial killers can find to make their victims' deaths as ghastly as possible. And the sex and violence are all there -- they're just the subject of discourse, rather than display. You still get to titillate yourself thinking about that torture-rape.
Two decades ago, a friend of mine labeled this kind of stuff "anti-human trash".
And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...
Step 1, Find piece of evidence, obscurely link it to most obvious suspect, and accuse. Step 2, Check suspects alibi, if fails goto step 4 Step 3, Goto step 1 with next most obvious suspect. Step 4, Yell 'science is great', it eventually led us straight to the answer! Bad science, bad investigating, bad writing.
All women want is honesty, if you can fake that, you're in.
This series reminds me of a BBC series from a couple of years ago: "silent witness". ... Since quality is difficult to find in today's television series, I will not use the word "rip-off" in this context, ...
Even though I like that one better, CSI is enjoyable,
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."