I gave CSI a fair shot at changing my mind about it, given the poor reputation the show has when it comes to its writing and the number of plot holes per episode. As a matter of fact, I was positively surprised by the pilot episode. It was considerably less illogical than I remember the show to be in its later years, some of the characters were quite likeable, and apart from the production values, the acting also wasn't bad. It made me believe I could actually stick with it at least for the first season. Unfortunately, most of that was crushed again with just the very next episode. It seems that indeed, the poor writing started almost at the very beginning of the show
The drop in quality of the show's writing between episodes one and two is bizarre. It went from Hollywood-acceptable to some of the worst drivel to ever claim to be a crime procedural. I usually end up with quite a lot to say about a show's pilot, and once a season has wrapped up, while not having much to add for the episodes in between – definitely not enough for more per-episode reviews. This is an exception for two reasons. First of all, despite my best intentions, it suddenly seems very unlikely that I'll keep watching the show after such a bad experience this early on. I suspect that my Blu-ray boxset may end up on an online auction site soon instead, so this review might well be the conclusion to my CSI watching project. Second, summing up my opinion about a CSI episode inevitably comes down to how many plot holes and instances of glorified junk science I was bothered by, and episode two leaves me with a sizeable list. These painful lines of dialogue and non-sequiturs also seem like a reasonable way to structure this.
For a victim who fell to his death, Gil Grissom rules out suicide because he didn't take his glasses off. But it gets even better than that.
"Suicide is the ultimate form of selfishness, detective. It's unlikely that anyone cowardly enough to take his own life would be brave enough to watch his own death." – I have a strong feeling that if William Peterson had read this script, and knew he would be asked to speak such an absurd line of dialogue, he would've reconsidered signing on for this show. This must, without a doubt, go down in television history as one of the worst, preposterous, bizarre and laughable lines of dialogue ever written.
"I don't want IA involved." – Oh, really? I didn't know law enforcement could decline internal investigations concerning suspected wrongdoing if they don't feel like it. That would be awfully convenient, and seem like a little bit of a flaw in the system.
There does seemingly have to be some kind of investigation, though, although Grissom somehow manages to have an old friend of his (Sara Sidle) take over, which also doesn't exactly instill confidence that anyone will be held liable for their mistakes. Catherine Willows' reaction? "Great, that's just what we need. Somebody sniffing around." – Yes, she is actually upset about the little pretend investigation that will be done, instead of the full crackdown that would probably have been appropriate given the circumstances. It doesn't feel like it was the writers' intention to make the Willows character seem as naïve and inexperienced as it does.
The stilted expositions are unbearably strong in this episode. Several scenes are introduced with lines of dialogue that could not be any clumsier. "What do you think happened here?", a police officer hastily stumbling into the crime scene asks Willows. "You're old school.", Sara Sidle confirms to Gil Grissom, with a nod that underlines that she had to read a sentence that was not intended as dialogue, but lifted directly from the character brief. Lab workers explain the trivial basics of what they're doing to the CSI staff, as if it was everyone's first case and nobody went through any form of professional education. And one of my favourites, when being led to a suspect in a casino by an attendant: "I pulled the slot card for you. That's the gentleman right over there." – why, for heaven's sake, wasn't the second sentence enough, I want to ask the writers? Identifying the card was, after all, what CSI asked the casino to do. And they didn't feel the need to tell CSI that that's what they did before calling them to the casino again? They wanted to keep it a mystery right up to the second that they show who they traced the card to? Most of the time, dialogue seems to have been written directly for the viewer of the show, not for the other characters on screen. One of the worst sins of bad screenwriting, and CSI is bursting at the seams with it. Also, it shows how the writers really take the audience for incredibly stupid, and think they won't be able to follow what's happening unless every single step is spelled out for them verbally. Even if a character has to mumble the explanation to themselves, which CSI is also very keen on doing, by the way. Ouch.
"I'm a scientist, I like to see it." – that's Grissom's explanation for why he prefers reenactments instead of computer simulations. No further comment necessary.
Which leads into the junk science. Featured this episode: gun cartridge case comparison (with the conclusion drawn after having looked at it under the microscope for a fraction of a second), and throwing dummies off a building in order to determine whether a victim jumped or was pushed – apart from the obvious logical and physical problems with that approach, my favourite part is that they do this before even knowing which floor the victim fell from. But, you know, he's a scientist. Then there's the obligatory residue on a suspect's or victim's clothes, because in the CSI universe, no one ever showers or washes their clothes (a full day seems to have passed between the crime and the moment at which this piece of "evidence" is starting to be considered).
The most painful moment is probably Willows' call. Let me summarize this part quickly: The suspect knows that it's quite likely they lost their pager at the scene of the crime. They know the police and CSI were all over that place already. They page themselves, which already seems like a brilliant idea, but let's write it down to most criminals not being very well equipped upstairs. Then, he gives out his whereabouts after exchanging barely two sentences of terribly cringey pseudo-slang with whomever is on the other end – which, again, he should have suspected could very well be a cop. But hey, she said "bling-bling", so it couldn't have been an officer! This entire scene is just so incredibly painful to watch, and could be one of the best examples to show people where CSI's reputation for illogical plots and terrible writing comes from. Who wrote this, and who signed off on this, and why the heck didn't every involved actor refuse to shoot this scene on set? It is used to cheat the plot to a conclusion while making zero sense and destroying any sense of believability because of how ridiculous it is. I watch a lot of bad television, but I haven't seen many things as pathetic as this.
"We're trained to ignore verbal accounts." – that's what I thought, and I thought it was sort of the premise of the whole show. However, this was said a few minutes after Grissom tells Stokes, asking him for his theory: "You've read the statement.". And, let's not forget, the investigators' constant nagging of suspects and witnesses about their version of what happened. The concept of CSI, focusing on forensics instead of the more commonly shown forms of investigation, could have been so interesting if it hadn't been done by a team of writers who obviously keep forgetting about the concept every few scenes.
A conviction or exoneration depends, once again, on the most flimsy and circumstantial piece of evidence. If getting away with murder was as easy as changing or washing your clothes, we'd be in deep trouble.
"Open up!" – shouted a few milliseconds before kicking down the door that the suspect is believed to be behind. Make up your mind: either you want to take advantage of the element of surprise, in which case I'd suggest not shouting anything to give the suspect time to react. Or you want to give them the option to surrender (seeing as the building was surrounded anyway), in which case, maybe waiting a few seconds to see if they want to would make more sense. CSI makes me go back to the same questions over and over again: who writes scenes like that, and doesn't immediately see the problem with them? And how can a big budget production like CSI have such a lack of quality control in the screenplays?
Why don't CSI use resealable evidence bags? The dramatic scenes of slitting open envelopes with knives might have been supposed to look dramatic, but it just looks weird and out of place.
After a DNA analysis: "814 quadrillion to one." – no, that is not how the maths of DNA matching works. I can tell that much without even knowing anything about DNA analysis, because it's also not how genetics work. I already wonder where CSI writers consulted on all the junk science they managed to dig up over the years, but someone understanding basic probability and statistics should've been possible to come by, no?
The show somehow looks a lot cheaper in this second episode than it did in the pilot. The colours are off, the sets look fake, and it has some of the worst compositing I've seen in a while. I don't know what happened there. It should be noted, though, that back in 2000 I probably wasn't the only one not watching HDTV yet, and here I'm reviewing the Blu-ray looking at the full 1080i sitting closely to my desktop screen.
This is not a criticism but an observation: the cases spanning multiple episodes might not have been part of CSI after all. I suspected so after watching the pilot, but maybe it was a one-time deal. Everything seems pretty resolved at the end of this episode.
To end on the little positive I found in this episode: I like the flashbacks, which gradually adapt to new information CSI learns about the possible chain of events. This typical CSI plot device was already used in the pilot, is quite fun, looks cool, and makes more sense than almost every other aspect of the show. Also, the episode delivered a favourite quote: "Nice swatch, Nick. Pizza box-sized."
I have to conclude that this is one of the worst things I've seen on television in a while. As I pointed out in my review of the pilot episode, I'm known to not recognize plot holes as easily as other people, which becomes embarrassingly evident when I watch movies and series with others. The fact that even I shake my head every few minutes when watching CSI should be an indication, then, of how terrible the writing really is. At the moment, I'm not even sure if the show has enough "trash charm" to keep watching, and make fun of how little sense the following episodes might make.
Review by DanielVIP 4BlockedParent2020-05-23T12:23:12Z
I gave CSI a fair shot at changing my mind about it, given the poor reputation the show has when it comes to its writing and the number of plot holes per episode. As a matter of fact, I was positively surprised by the pilot episode. It was considerably less illogical than I remember the show to be in its later years, some of the characters were quite likeable, and apart from the production values, the acting also wasn't bad. It made me believe I could actually stick with it at least for the first season. Unfortunately, most of that was crushed again with just the very next episode. It seems that indeed, the poor writing started almost at the very beginning of the show
The drop in quality of the show's writing between episodes one and two is bizarre. It went from Hollywood-acceptable to some of the worst drivel to ever claim to be a crime procedural. I usually end up with quite a lot to say about a show's pilot, and once a season has wrapped up, while not having much to add for the episodes in between – definitely not enough for more per-episode reviews. This is an exception for two reasons. First of all, despite my best intentions, it suddenly seems very unlikely that I'll keep watching the show after such a bad experience this early on. I suspect that my Blu-ray boxset may end up on an online auction site soon instead, so this review might well be the conclusion to my CSI watching project. Second, summing up my opinion about a CSI episode inevitably comes down to how many plot holes and instances of glorified junk science I was bothered by, and episode two leaves me with a sizeable list. These painful lines of dialogue and non-sequiturs also seem like a reasonable way to structure this.
For a victim who fell to his death, Gil Grissom rules out suicide because he didn't take his glasses off. But it gets even better than that.
"Suicide is the ultimate form of selfishness, detective. It's unlikely that anyone cowardly enough to take his own life would be brave enough to watch his own death." – I have a strong feeling that if William Peterson had read this script, and knew he would be asked to speak such an absurd line of dialogue, he would've reconsidered signing on for this show. This must, without a doubt, go down in television history as one of the worst, preposterous, bizarre and laughable lines of dialogue ever written.
"I don't want IA involved." – Oh, really? I didn't know law enforcement could decline internal investigations concerning suspected wrongdoing if they don't feel like it. That would be awfully convenient, and seem like a little bit of a flaw in the system.
There does seemingly have to be some kind of investigation, though, although Grissom somehow manages to have an old friend of his (Sara Sidle) take over, which also doesn't exactly instill confidence that anyone will be held liable for their mistakes. Catherine Willows' reaction? "Great, that's just what we need. Somebody sniffing around." – Yes, she is actually upset about the little pretend investigation that will be done, instead of the full crackdown that would probably have been appropriate given the circumstances. It doesn't feel like it was the writers' intention to make the Willows character seem as naïve and inexperienced as it does.
The stilted expositions are unbearably strong in this episode. Several scenes are introduced with lines of dialogue that could not be any clumsier. "What do you think happened here?", a police officer hastily stumbling into the crime scene asks Willows. "You're old school.", Sara Sidle confirms to Gil Grissom, with a nod that underlines that she had to read a sentence that was not intended as dialogue, but lifted directly from the character brief. Lab workers explain the trivial basics of what they're doing to the CSI staff, as if it was everyone's first case and nobody went through any form of professional education. And one of my favourites, when being led to a suspect in a casino by an attendant: "I pulled the slot card for you. That's the gentleman right over there." – why, for heaven's sake, wasn't the second sentence enough, I want to ask the writers? Identifying the card was, after all, what CSI asked the casino to do. And they didn't feel the need to tell CSI that that's what they did before calling them to the casino again? They wanted to keep it a mystery right up to the second that they show who they traced the card to? Most of the time, dialogue seems to have been written directly for the viewer of the show, not for the other characters on screen. One of the worst sins of bad screenwriting, and CSI is bursting at the seams with it. Also, it shows how the writers really take the audience for incredibly stupid, and think they won't be able to follow what's happening unless every single step is spelled out for them verbally. Even if a character has to mumble the explanation to themselves, which CSI is also very keen on doing, by the way. Ouch.
"I'm a scientist, I like to see it." – that's Grissom's explanation for why he prefers reenactments instead of computer simulations. No further comment necessary.
Which leads into the junk science. Featured this episode: gun cartridge case comparison (with the conclusion drawn after having looked at it under the microscope for a fraction of a second), and throwing dummies off a building in order to determine whether a victim jumped or was pushed – apart from the obvious logical and physical problems with that approach, my favourite part is that they do this before even knowing which floor the victim fell from. But, you know, he's a scientist. Then there's the obligatory residue on a suspect's or victim's clothes, because in the CSI universe, no one ever showers or washes their clothes (a full day seems to have passed between the crime and the moment at which this piece of "evidence" is starting to be considered).
The most painful moment is probably Willows' call. Let me summarize this part quickly: The suspect knows that it's quite likely they lost their pager at the scene of the crime. They know the police and CSI were all over that place already. They page themselves, which already seems like a brilliant idea, but let's write it down to most criminals not being very well equipped upstairs. Then, he gives out his whereabouts after exchanging barely two sentences of terribly cringey pseudo-slang with whomever is on the other end – which, again, he should have suspected could very well be a cop. But hey, she said "bling-bling", so it couldn't have been an officer! This entire scene is just so incredibly painful to watch, and could be one of the best examples to show people where CSI's reputation for illogical plots and terrible writing comes from. Who wrote this, and who signed off on this, and why the heck didn't every involved actor refuse to shoot this scene on set? It is used to cheat the plot to a conclusion while making zero sense and destroying any sense of believability because of how ridiculous it is. I watch a lot of bad television, but I haven't seen many things as pathetic as this.
"We're trained to ignore verbal accounts." – that's what I thought, and I thought it was sort of the premise of the whole show. However, this was said a few minutes after Grissom tells Stokes, asking him for his theory: "You've read the statement.". And, let's not forget, the investigators' constant nagging of suspects and witnesses about their version of what happened. The concept of CSI, focusing on forensics instead of the more commonly shown forms of investigation, could have been so interesting if it hadn't been done by a team of writers who obviously keep forgetting about the concept every few scenes.
A conviction or exoneration depends, once again, on the most flimsy and circumstantial piece of evidence. If getting away with murder was as easy as changing or washing your clothes, we'd be in deep trouble.
"Open up!" – shouted a few milliseconds before kicking down the door that the suspect is believed to be behind. Make up your mind: either you want to take advantage of the element of surprise, in which case I'd suggest not shouting anything to give the suspect time to react. Or you want to give them the option to surrender (seeing as the building was surrounded anyway), in which case, maybe waiting a few seconds to see if they want to would make more sense. CSI makes me go back to the same questions over and over again: who writes scenes like that, and doesn't immediately see the problem with them? And how can a big budget production like CSI have such a lack of quality control in the screenplays?
Why don't CSI use resealable evidence bags? The dramatic scenes of slitting open envelopes with knives might have been supposed to look dramatic, but it just looks weird and out of place.
After a DNA analysis: "814 quadrillion to one." – no, that is not how the maths of DNA matching works. I can tell that much without even knowing anything about DNA analysis, because it's also not how genetics work. I already wonder where CSI writers consulted on all the junk science they managed to dig up over the years, but someone understanding basic probability and statistics should've been possible to come by, no?
The show somehow looks a lot cheaper in this second episode than it did in the pilot. The colours are off, the sets look fake, and it has some of the worst compositing I've seen in a while. I don't know what happened there. It should be noted, though, that back in 2000 I probably wasn't the only one not watching HDTV yet, and here I'm reviewing the Blu-ray looking at the full 1080i sitting closely to my desktop screen.
This is not a criticism but an observation: the cases spanning multiple episodes might not have been part of CSI after all. I suspected so after watching the pilot, but maybe it was a one-time deal. Everything seems pretty resolved at the end of this episode.
To end on the little positive I found in this episode: I like the flashbacks, which gradually adapt to new information CSI learns about the possible chain of events. This typical CSI plot device was already used in the pilot, is quite fun, looks cool, and makes more sense than almost every other aspect of the show. Also, the episode delivered a favourite quote: "Nice swatch, Nick. Pizza box-sized."
I have to conclude that this is one of the worst things I've seen on television in a while. As I pointed out in my review of the pilot episode, I'm known to not recognize plot holes as easily as other people, which becomes embarrassingly evident when I watch movies and series with others. The fact that even I shake my head every few minutes when watching CSI should be an indication, then, of how terrible the writing really is. At the moment, I'm not even sure if the show has enough "trash charm" to keep watching, and make fun of how little sense the following episodes might make.