Stoked Off

Apr. 27th, 2012 10:30 pm
ravenswept: (Default)
[personal profile] ravenswept
I've long ago given up the fact that CSI, in any of it's incarnations, is an indictative slice of reality as an observation as to real crime scene investigation work, relagating it to it's own fiction TV universe like were people such as Carrie Bradshaw are able to make overly extravagant lifestyles on simple columnist salaries, and where seemingly anyone can have an apartment in "Friends" that would realistically cost in the point-something millions for that kind of square footage, but I digress.

This is a world where field agents are everything at once; evidence retrival, processing, detective, lab tech, the only thing they don't do is paperwork. A world where high-salaried lab techs actively want to be down-graded to field work. Where one will do a number of different specialaties, instead of leaving it to someone who job is to only do the one thing they are really good at. Where arson is left to regular field techs, instead of specilized arson units.

But I digress.

Something I never thought about, at least when I first started watching, was that they do their jobs... pretty badly. Number one of which is, somebody turn on a freaking light. How these people do any work at all, or aren't all wearing glasses is beyond me, because I swear these people are vampires. Okay, granted, they're the night shift, but when you're sweeping a scene for evidence, what protocol is there to not turn on a freaking lamp or ceiling light? Especially in the lab, where you're supposed to be doing important work; you need more than just a single light source focused on just the evidence in question. I shudder to think of how much they miss, or misfocus on, because their attention is attracted to the bright light. CSI Las Vegas are a lab of moths.


Yes, I understand artistic direction, and that, yes, I'm complaining about a TV show. But this is a TV show who had a major hand in influencing the populace at large, and a show that has caused prosecutors no end of frustration because they "don't have as much evidence as those CSI guys do".

And this is fully staffed

But thing about CSI, particularly the original iteration, is one Nick Stokes.

A face you want to punch

I hate this charater. Or maybe just the actor's protrayal. Maybe both, one begetting the other.

I realized this when, in one episode, he (and not the detective/officer with him, who is little more than chaulfer) questions a husband/boyfriend about his missing spouse. From the get go, he's arragont and not a little dismissive of the guy. He is suspicious of everything the guy says, and seems to really want to find anything to link him to the crime in question. When it turns out the guy had no hand in the death, aside of stupidity, it's clear Stokes would have taken him in regardless, had he been able.

Again, I know this is an entertainment show, and that means consulatating casting extras to victim/suspect/red herring/killer.

But this doesn't negate that Stokes, as a whole, is a bad agent and seems to be in the wrong line of work. He doesn't need to be CSI for what he wants, he needs to an officer, an actual cop. Every time, save the odd episode where he needs to "learn a lesson", he takes the first sign of evidence to mean it's that particular person it points to. He doesn't just suspect, he hones in and goes just until something says otherwise. Then he's off in that direction.

He's played as very smarmy, like he knows better than everyone else. And I hate that. At least here, because a better actor would be able to make that smarm charm work to their advantage, so as the audience doesn't feel like booing him just for appearing on screen.

Which brings me to Danny Messer, the Stokes of CSI: NY.

I'mma get that bitch a panda; bitches love pandas

Messer, Brooklyn born and raised with the attitude and accent to match, works as smarmy and arragont. Maybe it's the accent, which most non-Yorkers read as tough-guy-acting anyway, but there's humanity behind it. You believe that this guy can go bloodhound focus on someone, not because of a predisposition to think a person guilty, but because he thinks the evidence is a matter of fact. He doesn't take it personally if it leads to somewhere else. He's not a asshat twat.

That's one of the reasons I watch, when I do, CSI:NY over any of the others. I like the characters better, because they aren't just characters (Grissom: misantrope weirdo, Sidle: another smarmy, entitled character) they're actual people, with histories that affect them rather than being affected by them.

The main reason being, Gary Sinise is a mack daddy. Long live Lieutenant Dan.

Look at him rock that suit. Rock on Mr. Sinise. Rock on.

And no, I don't watch CSI: Miami. If anything, it's more arrogant than CSI: LV. David Caruso has sunglass-Tourette's. Show an emotion beyond smug and one-liner. Yes, he turned one-liner into an emotion. Because that's all he does.


on 2012-04-28 12:56 pm (UTC)
Posted by [personal profile] amethystfirefly
Please use a lj-cut for posts of this length. Our brain can't process huge posts when they show up on our reading list and we end up staring at the computer screen blankly for 5 or 10 minutes until our brain kicks in.
Edited on 2012-04-28 12:58 pm (UTC)

on 2012-04-28 10:32 pm (UTC)
Posted by [personal profile] amethystfirefly
-laughs- No huge worries. Our brain is just extra special sucky lately. Thanks.


ravenswept: (Default)

January 2013

13141516 171819

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 22nd, 2019 04:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios