CSI: Why the harshness towards Jorja Fox?
John
show.
But I thought Sara Sidle was the best character on the show. And her
relationship with Grissom was an incredible backstory. Jorja Fox's absence
will hurt the show as far as I'm concerned.
Why does everyone dislike her so much?
John
Maroon 'keet
"John" <jnan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040716200757...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Based on all the postings, a lot of people are thrilled that she's off
the
> show.
>
> But I thought Sara Sidle was the best character on the show. And her
absence
> will hurt the show as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Why does everyone dislike her so much?
>
> John
Well it's not that I don't like HER I don't know her. The character, to
me, has always been written very weakly and her new back-story of
dependency on alcohol plus the semi bitterness over the promotion she
didn't get (well actually neither got due to budget cuts), plus the feeling
that they were going to revisit the Grissom back-story just annoyed the
crap out of me, it weakened the character, added nothing and was poorly
written. It seemed to be a weak attempt at giving Fox something to do that
wasn't "sure Griz I'll get right on it." Maybe CBS felt the same way,
though this sounds more deeply rooted than she just didn't respond to the
letter in time.
CSI is and should be about the case, yes I want to care about the
characters who are the CSI and the actors who portray the CSI's but I don't
want a soap opera. Without a Trace is starting to falling into that
category as well.
JRD
>show.
I have no idea why. I liked Sara, like 'em all....
Uboyle
LittleGreyPoodle
"John" <jnan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040716200757...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Ian J. Ball
jnan...@aol.com (John) wrote:
> Why does everyone dislike her so much?
Because Sara Sidle was always a totally unlikable character.
In my case, there's added antipathy because I always thought, and still
think, that Chandra West (who was in the original "CSI" pilot as the
rookie tech who was murdered) would have been a much, much better
participant on the show.
In any case, I'm glad Sidle's gone.
Stokes, OTOH, is the only character I really, really *liked*, and I'm
not sure how much I'll like "CSI" with him gone...
--
Ian J. Ball | "I think things are even worse now after
TV lover, and | the awful... fish sex."
Usenet slacker | - Seth Cohen, "The O.C."
ijball@macDOTcom | http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV.html
Myrnag2555
I'm sick of the expectation that every single woman on TV has to be a former
exotic dancer. So what if she's "butch"? Which she wasn't incidentally, she
just wasn't a glamour queen.
sdfasa
idk either..i thought she was a babe..
PkJ0891
<bra...@kamikaze.orgy> writes:
>John <jnan...@aol.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>
>> Based on all the postings, a lot of people are thrilled that she's
>> off the show.
>>
>> But I thought Sara Sidle was the best character on the show. And
>> her relationship with Grissom was an incredible backstory. Jorja
>> Fox's absence will hurt the show as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>> Why does everyone dislike her so much?
>>
>> John
>>
>
>Because she's butch and homely and completely unbelievable as any
>manner of love interest they['ve been trying to thrust on us between
>her character and Gil.
O c'mon, Brandy, don't be so mean <g>. During your travels in life, I'm sure
you've seen women who were truly butch and unattractive. I certainly have.
Jorja is an average-looking woman (who cleans up nicely, when her hair is done
and make-up is on) who doesn't flounce around like a beauty queen and speaks as
though her IQ is in triple digits. Good for her. Obviously, I liked both the
actress and her character.
Having said that, I so agree with you about the Gil/Sara subplot. I hated it,
because I saw the Gil Grissom character as a guy who was attracted to strong,
assertive, complex women. Sara was strong and assertive in her professional
life, but her personal life was a mess. She lacked confidence in herself as a
woman and was kind of a wounded bird in the interpersonal relationships
department. No way would Gil be having regrets about not pursuing her.
PKJ
With Jamie from RWSD
Grey Wolf
I thought Fox did a great job, and I even liked her character most of
the time. I will agree with Brandy that the "relationship that never
was" between Sidle and Grissom seemed forced and distracted me from
enjoying their characters. I will miss her.
I'll also miss Eads... Nick was often peppy and gave the show an
upbeat spin compared to the other cast members (though Grissom
sometimes is playful too). Greg, on the other hand, seemed too snappy
with comebacks, and the other tech guy is not interesting to me at
all. I prefer Greg to remain in the lab and not be a CSI.
Overall, I'll be sad to see the two go, it won't be the same show
without them.
David
Grey Wolf
<ab...@spamabuse.org> wrote:
>
>CSI is and should be about the case, yes I want to care about the
>characters who are the CSI and the actors who portray the CSI's but I don't
>want a soap opera. Without a Trace is starting to falling into that
>category as well.
>
You have a good point. These shows, if they avoid going the human
drama/soap opera route, just end up being "police procedural" week
after week... nothing different than "Forensic Files". However, if
you want a show that has character growth in it, then you have to get
into their lives somehow.
I think CSI tries to give us the best of both worlds. I think they
realize that people who like the subject matter (forensics) are
probably people who aren't into soapy drama. But yet, they have to
have some character growth to keep it interesting, because this is not
"Forensic Files". So there's these little touches here and there that
show the characters changing, but nothing that overpowers the police
procedural part of the show.
Unfortunately, some of their ideas for "character growth" seem to be
forced into a bad fit (such as the Grissom/Sidle thing) and when the
human drama level is so slight to begin with, it doesn't take a lot of
forcing to make us feel it.
Now... I think Without A Trace has included drama much more openly
since the beginning. It didn't take long for us to see Martin's
father, or the impact of Jack and Sam's affair. Again they try and
keep it less than most dramas, but definitely more drama than CSI.
And maybe it's because the actors have done a great job, but I don't
mind it on Without A Trace.
David
PkJ0891
<bra...@kamikaze.orgy> writes:
>PkJ0891 <pkj...@aol.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>
>> O c'mon, Brandy, don't be so mean <g>. During your travels in
>> life, I'm sure you've seen women who were truly butch and
>> unattractive. I certainly have.
>>
>
>So have I. Apparently you never saw her walk.
In RL, no. On TV, yes.
Jorja doesn't flounce, doesn't rotate hips. She walks. She's not graceful;
she's not sexy. She just puts one foot in front of the other and walks. No
lumbering around like a pro-wrestler, body-builder, steroid-overdoser, or NFL
wannabe. Just a normal gait, without any of the stereotypical gender-specific
mannerisms that are intended to convey female sexuality.
Ultra-sexy Catherine doesn't slink around, either. She's more graceful, but
her gait conveys professionalism. Same with the women on NYPD Blue. And on
Cold Case. I've heard the story that Jorja is a lesbian, but I haven't seen
anything in her portrayal of Sara that would indicate an inability of Jorja to
convey a straight woman hopelessly in love with her male mentor. My entire
problem with the storyline is that *Grissom* regards Sara as his lost love.
PKJ
Maroon 'keet
"Grey Wolf" <phony...@phonyemail.com> wrote in message
news:llahf012buv4lrgg2...@4ax.com...
I agree with the Without A Trace being open about the characters back
stories since day 1. But it seemed natural, it was natural (to me) that
Jack felt guilt over not seeing his children, which lead to family strife,
which lead to him leaving his job only to find his wife hoped he'd say no
because she wanted a divorce. All while dealing with his ageing father and
the alzheimer's that was taking the father away, the affair also, Martin's
father (the rich/senatorial type right?) seems right as does the hispanic
character dealing with the parole hearing for his brother. The difference?
These were kept separate from the work environment, CSI seems to want to
force down my throat that all of their "human drama" only occurs within the
case or the confines of the lab. Also as you stated, Trace did this from
day 1, CSI seeems to have had a revelation in a staff meeting and all of a
sudden a group of professionals started showing their lives from pretty
much out of no where (The strippers gangster father/the techs alcoholism)
The only stories I remember from day 1 on CSI were the Black techs gambling
habit and the Redhead's child/divorce/daddy wanting custody. CSI seems to
not be able to mix story with backstore as Trace seems to do so well. And
yes, I'm a day 1 viewer for Vegas CSI (miami is a poor relation and I
haven't seen enough of NY to make a call yet) and a day 1 viewer for Trace.
Plus, again my opinion, the cast of "Without a Trace" is more talented than
the cast of "CSI: Las Vegas." Another discussion I suppose - the shows are
so different Trace being FBI/Suits/Professions; CSI being more casual and
loose.
Myrnag2555
>>
>> I'm sick of the expectation that every single woman on TV has to
>> be a former exotic dancer.
>>
>
Yeah, by gosh, it's totally implausible that
a crime scene technician could be less than stunning or that anyone could ever
care about a less than stunning person.
Steven Blue
I don't know. But I do know that they were the two best characters. The
episodes I have seen ( about 4 in total this past season) They were all my
favorite scenes. Didn't like the old guy. and I didn't like the orange head
girl that much, and the african american guy is only ok a little annoying at
times. Its too bad they are gone. Now I won't have to watch any episodes at
all next season and future seasons.
David RP Haig
news:ijball***SPAM-No***-354C84.193...@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
> In article <20040716200757...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
> jnan...@aol.com (John) wrote:
>
> > Why does everyone dislike her so much?
>
> Because Sara Sidle was always a totally unlikable character.
>
> In my case, there's added antipathy because I always thought, and still
> think, that Chandra West (who was in the original "CSI" pilot as the
> rookie tech who was murdered) would have been a much, much better
> participant on the show.
>
> In any case, I'm glad Sidle's gone.
>
> Stokes, OTOH, is the only character I really, really *liked*, and I'm
> not sure how much I'll like "CSI" with him gone...
>
> --
Stokes was my favority as well. It will be a different show with Nick and
Sara gone. :( Hopefully they won't totally screw it up.
Dave
Invid Fan
<bra...@kamikaze.orgy> wrote:
> Myrnag2555 <myrna...@aol.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>
> >>Because she's butch and homely and
> >
> > I'm sick of the expectation that every single woman on TV has to
> > be a former exotic dancer.
> >
>
> I didn't say she did. She just doesn't fit the role. Completely
> miscast if they wanted to make her a love interest.
She was miscast as a woman who has a boss who can't bring himself to
show any real feelings for her? What type of actor would fit in the
roll?
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Grey Wolf
<ab...@spamabuse.org> wrote:
>I agree with the Without A Trace being open about the characters back
>stories since day 1. But it seemed natural, it was natural (to me) that
>Jack felt guilt over not seeing his children, which lead to family strife,
>which lead to him leaving his job only to find his wife hoped he'd say no
>because she wanted a divorce. All while dealing with his ageing father and
>the alzheimer's that was taking the father away, the affair also, Martin's
>father (the rich/senatorial type right?) seems right as does the hispanic
>character dealing with the parole hearing for his brother.
I like Martin's story... especially how his relationship with his
father compares to his relationship with Jack Malone (his boss),
arguably a better father figure. Actually, I am thankful for the
drama on Without A Trace because these are fine dramatic actors, and
it is a joy to watch them work their craft.
>The difference?
>These were kept separate from the work environment, CSI seems to want to
>force down my throat that all of their "human drama" only occurs within the
>case or the confines of the lab.
I agree. The more I think about it, although I don't mind the
developing backstories in CSI, I am not as interested in them as I am
the ones in Without A Trace. (And I think this last season, they
stood out even more glaringly.) I think on some level it's because
they're not as believable because it's seems an obvious ploy, because
the show originally did not bother with it, so why now? I remember
after Season 1 was done, the show seemed cool BECAUSE of the fact that
it hadn't really delved into the backstories. It was kinda
refreshing, at the time.
>yes, I'm a day 1 viewer for Vegas CSI (miami is a poor relation and I
>haven't seen enough of NY to make a call yet) and a day 1 viewer for Trace.
>
I came in on CSI halfway in Season 1, and luckily caught most of the
missed episodes on reruns either mid-season or during summer.
David
sdfasa
<phony...@phonyemail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:02:09 -0700, "Maroon 'keet"
><ab...@spamabuse.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I agree with the Without A Trace being open about the characters back
>>stories since day 1. But it seemed natural, it was natural (to me) that
>>Jack felt guilt over not seeing his children, which lead to family strife,
>>which lead to him leaving his job only to find his wife hoped he'd say no
>>because she wanted a divorce. All while dealing with his ageing father and
>>the alzheimer's that was taking the father away, the affair also, Martin's
>>father (the rich/senatorial type right?) seems right as does the hispanic
>>character dealing with the parole hearing for his brother.
>
>I like Martin's story... especially how his relationship with his
>father compares to his relationship with Jack Malone (his boss),
>arguably a better father figure. Actually, I am thankful for the
>drama on Without A Trace because these are fine dramatic actors, and
>it is a joy to watch them work their craft.
i watched the first half of season 1..it was too depressing for me to
continue
but the cast they assembled is pretty remarkable..probably the best on
tv today
Sherrill Edwards
news:ijball***SPAM-No***-354C84.193...@orngca-news03.socal.rr.com...
They were actually developing an interesting contrast between Grissom's
"don't get emotionally involved" approach and Nick's "I want to solve the
case because I care about the victim/survivors" approach. I like William
Petersen, but a little of his character goes a long way. Catherine is
getting so sharp and tough that she's almost unwatchable. I like Warrick's
character and Greg in the lab, but they're not enough to hold the show
together for me. I won't miss Sara--I think they could have done a lot more
with her character development though...
I think this is a big mistake on CBS' part. The stories themselves are
starting to be redundant or just too weird for words. Without continuity of
your main characters (and Nick was a main, if underused, character), it will
all devolve into repetitive sludge, particularly when you're using the same
premise in two other shows. How many odd-but-true forensic storylines can
they come up with for three shows? I've watched CSI since the very first
episode, and it used to be "must see or tape" for me, but now I just watch
or tape it when I remember. If CSI:New York has a better mix of characters,
I'll probably opt for that instead.
Meanwhile, I don't blame the "lesser" players for wanting a bigger piece of
the action. Whenever CBS has an hour they need to fill, they plug in an old
CSI episode. It improves the actors' visibility and probably increases their
overall residuals, but if you get paid $100K to film an episode that airs
five or six times in a year, CBS isn't losing too much money in the deal.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Scott
>I've heard the story that Jorja is a lesbian,
Perhaps these stories are fueled by the fact it was alluded that her
charactor on ER was bisexual. They never really went anywhere with
that, but she wasn't on ER very long.
Grey Wolf
>
>i watched the first half of season 1..it was too depressing for me to
>continue
>
Yeah... it can be tough coming off of a particularly strong episode,
to see one of those MISSING photos. It really nails home the sadness
that missing persons is about.
David
Frater Mus
> Myrnag2555 <myrna...@aol.com> wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>
>>
>> I'm sick of the expectation that every single woman on TV has to
>> be a former exotic dancer.
>>
>
> miscast if they wanted to make her a love interest.
People fall in love with butch/homely people all the time IRL. I'd
rather see some of that than yet another cosmetic surgery-alterated
pneumatic.
--
L.V.X., brother mouse
http://cbsrmt.mousetrap.net/RMTdb/ CBS Radio Mystery Theater database
http://greyhound.mousetrap.net/altus/ retired racing greyhound
http://www.mousetrap.net/~mouse/cs.html How to get good phone support
EGTea
"John" <jnan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040716200757...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Based on all the postings, a lot of people are thrilled that she's off the
> show.
>
> But I thought Sara Sidle was the best character on the show. And her
> relationship with Grissom was an incredible backstory. Jorja Fox's
absence
> will hurt the show as far as I'm concerned.
>
>
>
Because she should have stayed on "The West Wing." Her character was in
charge of protecting the president's daughter. After Fox left, Zoey Bartlet
was kidnapped!
Seriously, I have nothing against Jorja Fox. She just happend to be the one
in the way when Hollywood execs decided to crack the whip -- as they do from
time to time.
Remember how they made examples of Valerie Harper and Suzanne Sommers when
they asked for more money?
Salaries for prime-time actors got way out of hand when they paid Paul
Reiser and Helen Hunt $1 million each per episode in the last season of "Mad
About You." Then the casts of "Friends" and "The Simpsons" discovered that
ensemble-cast shows could extort huge paydays by adopting an
"one-for-all-and-all-for-one" approach to their salary demands.
Jorja Fox is okay.She just happend to be in the line of fire when the
bullets started flying.
John Duncan Yoyo
She is back on CSI already so the point is moot. Eads will in all
likely hood be back next week.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Ian J. Ball
Not that I don't believe you, but, source?!
Ian (Also, I think CBS is making a mistake letting them back. Even if
they were factually wrong on firing them in the first place, once that
has been done they need to stick to their guns or they look weak and
indecisive...)
John Duncan Yoyo
<ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1h60g0t22kgjgfone...@4ax.com>,
> John Duncan Yoyo <john-dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>> She is back on CSI already so the point is moot. Eads will in all
>> likely hood be back next week.
>
>Not that I don't believe you, but, source?!
>
It looks like Fox's paper work was misplaced by the production
company.
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&e=2&u=/ap/20040723/ap_en_tv/csi_fired_actors>
tiny version http://tinyurl.com/6z8xx
As for EADS gut feeling, half a dozen articles that have been posted
here and the fact that he is the CSI stud with a female following.
'Hey I over slept' is a stupid excuse but loosing the chick magnet
over that slim reasoning is plain dumb.
John Duncan Yoyo
<john-dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 02:29:23 GMT, "Ian J. Ball"
><ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In article <1h60g0t22kgjgfone...@4ax.com>,
>> John Duncan Yoyo <john-dun...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> She is back on CSI already so the point is moot. Eads will in all
>>> likely hood be back next week.
>>
>>Not that I don't believe you, but, source?!
>>
>
>It looks like Fox's paper work was misplaced by the production
>company.
>
><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&e=2&u=/ap/20040723/ap_en_tv/csi_fired_actors>
>tiny version http://tinyurl.com/6z8xx
>
>As for EADS gut feeling, half a dozen articles that have been posted
>here and the fact that he is the CSI stud with a female following.
>'Hey I over slept' is a stupid excuse but loosing the chick magnet
>over that slim reasoning is plain dumb.
I was off by a weekend. Eads is back.
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&e=4&u=/ap/20040724/ap_en_tv/tv_csi_fired_actors>
tiny version http://tinyurl.com/4qasc
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Ian (Also, I think CBS is making a mistake letting them back. Even if
they were factually wrong on firing them in the first place, once that
has been done they need to stick to their guns or they look weak and
indecisive...) >>
Firing somebody for SHOWING UP to work because they didn't send back a letter
saying 'yes, I intend to show up to work' sounds pretty actionable to me.
Ian J. Ball
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
Once you've publicly announced the firings, the die is cast - PR
dictates that you have to stick by that whether you are factually wrong
or not.
CBS just looks ridiculous in this whole thing now, first firing them
(possibly over mistaken info), and then turning tail and rehiring them
when they took some heat. It just looks lame. Les Moonves looks
completely incompetent in this...
Ian (...and I'm talking *Gail Berman*-level incompetent!)
SpannrWrks
>(possibly over mistaken info), and then turning tail and rehiring them
I'd disagree with you on this one, Ian. Eads & Fox aren't going to hold out
again any time soon (if ever), and I'll wager that anyone else at CBS who is
thinking about holding out is shelving those plans.
The message has been sent to everybody and the show remains intact. I'd say
Moonves wins.
----
Captain: "Monk, everything doesn't have to add up."
Monk: "Yeah, it kinda does."
(From: Monk)
ANIM8Rfsk
<< > Firing somebody for SHOWING UP to work because they didn't send back a
letter
> saying 'yes, I intend to show up to work' sounds pretty actionable to me.
Once you've publicly announced the firings, the die is cast - PR
dictates that you have to stick by that whether you are factually wrong
or not. >>
<< CBS just looks ridiculous in this whole thing now >>
I think they'd look even more ridiculous after they lost the lawsuit for firing
somebody for COMING to work.
<< Les Moonves looks
completely incompetent in this...
Ian (...and I'm talking *Gail Berman*-level incompetent!) >>
Agreed.
John Duncan Yoyo
>>CBS just looks ridiculous in this whole thing now, first firing them
>>(possibly over mistaken info), and then turning tail and rehiring them
>>when they took some heat. It just looks lame...
>
>I'd disagree with you on this one, Ian. Eads & Fox aren't going to hold out
>again any time soon (if ever), and I'll wager that anyone else at CBS who is
>thinking about holding out is shelving those plans.
Do they actually work for CBS or Bruckheimer's production company?
Bruckheimer could have decided that he wanted them back. Not taking
them back could delay things for the fall since they probably have a
minimum of half a dozen scripts written already that might need to be
rewritten or scrapped.
trickster
>
> I don't know. But I do know that they were the two best characters. The
> episodes I have seen ( about 4 in total this past season) They were all my
> favorite scenes. Didn't like the old guy. and I didn't like the orange head
> girl that much, and the african american guy is only ok a little annoying at
> times. Its too bad they are gone. Now I won't have to watch any episodes at
> all next season and future seasons.
Yeah, but reality dictates you have to have an old guy working for a
city agency. There's a whole mess of diversity on those city/state
jobs. I mean, the only jobs where everyone is the same age and/or
looks the same...is McDonalds or the mall. Actually, Jorja's
character was a little better than her Miami counterpart. She didn't
have that irrating nasally cartoon powerpuff girl voice...When she
spoke of forensics it didn't sound like a three year old repeating
something. She spoke more like a grown up.
Ian J. Ball
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
> << From: "Ian J. Ball" ijball***SPAM-No***@mac.com.invalid >>
>
> > > Firing somebody for SHOWING UP to work because they didn't send back
> > > a letter saying 'yes, I intend to show up to work' sounds pretty
> > > actionable to me.
> >
> > Once you've publicly announced the firings, the die is cast - PR
> > dictates that you have to stick by that whether you are factually
> > wrong or not.
>
> I think they'd look even more ridiculous after they lost the lawsuit for
> firing somebody for COMING to work.
Viacom's lawyers could have strung such a lawsuit out for decades -
that's what they get paid for. CBS had no real fears on the legal
front...
Myrnag2555
>they were factually wrong on firing them in the first place, once that
>has been done they need to stick to their guns or they look weak and
>indecisive...) >>
>
>Firing somebody for SHOWING UP to work because they didn't send back a letter
>saying 'yes, I intend to show up to work' sounds pretty actionable to me.
Especially since apparently she did send the letter after all.
Maureen Goldman
>Once you've publicly announced the firings, the die is cast - PR
>dictates that you have to stick by that whether you are factually wrong
>or not.
>
>CBS just looks ridiculous in this whole thing now, first firing them
>(possibly over mistaken info), and then turning tail and rehiring them
>when they took some heat. It just looks lame. Les Moonves looks
>completely incompetent in this...
My view is the opposite. The actors look foolish, not the network.
John Duncan Yoyo
I wonder if they keep a dog in the mail room for just those
emergencies.
Richard
> "John" <jnan...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040716200757...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > Based on all the postings, a lot of people are thrilled that she's off
> the
> > show.
> >
> > But I thought Sara Sidle was the best character on the show. And her
> absence
> > will hurt the show as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > Why does everyone dislike her so much?
> >
> > John
>
> me, has always been written very weakly and her new back-story of
> dependency on alcohol plus the semi bitterness over the promotion she
> didn't get (well actually neither got due to budget cuts), plus the feeling
> that they were going to revisit the Grissom back-story just annoyed the
> crap out of me, it weakened the character, added nothing and was poorly
> written. It seemed to be a weak attempt at giving Fox something to do that
> wasn't "sure Griz I'll get right on it."
No one complained when Warrick had his gambling problem. Maybe making them
human isn't such a bad idea? I for one liked her attachment to Grissom,
she idolized the person and became attracted to him. It wasn't like it
was the MAJOR topic of each episode.
Most Americans want the CSIs to be infallible robots, doling out bromides
about the "job" and dry one-liners to the perps.
-Rich
Maroon 'keet
"Richard" <rande...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:ec75e55a.04072...@posting.google.com...
> "Maroon 'keet" <ab...@spamabuse.org> wrote in message
news:<2lr9cjF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> > "John" <jnan...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040716200757...@mb-m02.aol.com...
to
> > me, has always been written very weakly and her new back-story of
> > dependency on alcohol plus the semi bitterness over the promotion she
> > didn't get (well actually neither got due to budget cuts), plus the
feeling
> > that they were going to revisit the Grissom back-story just annoyed the
> > crap out of me, it weakened the character, added nothing and was poorly
> > written. It seemed to be a weak attempt at giving Fox something to do
that
> > wasn't "sure Griz I'll get right on it."
>
> No one complained when Warrick had his gambling problem. Maybe making
them
> human isn't such a bad idea? I for one liked her attachment to Grissom,
> she idolized the person and became attracted to him. It wasn't like it
> was the MAJOR topic of each episode.
> Most Americans want the CSIs to be infallible robots, doling out bromides
> about the "job" and dry one-liners to the perps.
> -Rich
<Snipped for length, apologize if attributions got munched in the process>
With me, it's because Warrick's problem came in with him, it was part of
the character and has played a strong part in who the character is and has
become. His character has made decisions based on the back-story of the
gambling addiction. With Fox's back-story it's all of a sudden been dropped
on me without any previous warnings or apparent character flaw. She's
always been the strong one, the smart one, the not pretty one - enough to
be an alkie (storyline wise?) yes definitely it just doesn't seem right
though. It still seems like a flawed attempt at giving Fox something to do
other than "yes griz" or stare mooney eyed over him or get pissy when she
didn't get the promotion. A more believable storyline might have taken a
few episodes to start the arc when she acted out because of the no
promotion, or saw him with another woman (Catharine perhaps?) and got angry
or even some story about a victim that wasn't a showgirl who got dumped for
a trophy wife. I don't want dry infallible robots but I want believable
character development and a reason to care whether she's going to recover,
get fired or continue the spiral downward into the life of a drunk. I
don't want to be forced to believe what I just don't see there (yet) and
the next season of her wallowing and whining is going to get really old
unless it's well written.
Even Catharine's father story arc has continued into a believable
back-story and that wasn't one that was fully developed in the first
season, the divorce, child custody and death of the ex husband was
developed enough that when she took the money from her newly found father
it made sense.