Couch Potato Report

Let’s be honest: people love TV because it’s escapism at its finest. It is a form of entertainment where even reality isn’t real and we’re asked hourly to put aside our skepticism and employ what TV people call “the suspension of disbelief”. Without it, no one would watch shows in which a car crashes, hurtling end over end, only to have the driver walk away with nothing more than a small cut on his forehead (yeah, I’m lookin’ at you, ChiPs). Or how about the popular scenario in which the crime fighter tussles with the criminal and emerges victorious not only with the bad guy in handcuffs, but also with neatly pressed clothing and perfect hair.

I was thinking of this the other night while watching Remington Steele with hubby. It’s a favorite weekend activity of ours, to watch old TV shows on DVDs we receive from Netflix (greatest invention since the DVD player). Remington and Laura got themselves into a bit of a scrape, as usual, and had to swim to shore, clawing their way through the sand to escape the bad guys. A beat later, they’re running down a sidewalk and Hubby remarks, “His clothes are way too clean.” I agreed – Pierce Brosnan was well coiffed and neatly dressed, which disappointed me, especially when I took a good look at Stephanie Zimbalist. In contrast to her co-star, she was mussed and muddy. The people behind Remington Steele didn’t usually make such glaring errors, and it got me thinking about many of the other shows we watch.

Most of our favorite programs are pretty good at walking the fine line between believable and outlandish. If they didn’t, if they asked me to hold my disbelief in suspension beyond its breaking point, they wouldn’t be my favorite shows. I wouldn’t waste my time, which is why I’m so disappointed when one of my shows crosses that line and forces me to take action.

That’s right, I’m calling shenanigans – on CSI: NY.

In the final episode of last season, a drive-by shooting shattered the heartfelt moment shared by the cast as they drank a toast to fallen NYPD detective Jessica Angell (Emmanuelle Vaugier). We found out in the opener for the current season that CSI Danny Messer (Carmine Giovinazzo) had been shot, and that he was unable to walk. In fact, we were told he had no sensation below his chest.

Much drama ensued for both Danny and his wife, CSI Lindsay Monroe (Anna Belknap). I like a good, angsty storyline, so I was riveted.  I even remarked to Hubby that this was a genius storyline, because Danny told his wife (and all of us) that the doctor did not have high expectation for his recovery. My feeling was that they could really use this for the entire season, or at least half of it, and potentially reach a whole new segment of their audience who deal with issues of mobility and accessibility.

I envisioned Danny having problems when arriving at crime scenes and finding no ramps or working elevators. I imagined Mac Taylor (Gary Sinise) figuring out ways to make the labs more wheelchair-friendly so Danny could still do his job. I believed this was an opportunity to tell the story of life encumbered by injury, recovery and the frustration that comes with “disability”. I figured this was forward-thinking on the part of the writers and, if portrayed accurately, could bring awareness to those of us who have no idea what life is like when confined to a wheelchair.

Apparently, the people behind CSI: NY weren’t aiming for any of these lofty goals. They simply wanted some drama for Danny and Lindsay to deal with, now that baby Lucy has arrived. So the wheelchair arc lasted all of five episodes. At breakneck speed, we went from Danny doubting he’d ever walk again to strolling around the lab, doing his job as if he’d never been injured at all.

Oh, CSI: NY. Why did you waste so much potential? Were you afraid viewers would lose patience for a storyline that actually had teeth? (As opposed to another lame serial killer arc – I mean, seriously, are all the world’s serial killers based in NYC? And if so, why is Mac Taylor the only one who can catch them? This seems very Horatio Caine to me, and CSI: NY – you’re better than that.)

I’m not a doctor. I don’t even play one on TV. But I suspect that it takes much longer in real life for a person with Danny’s injury to recover and be able to walk naturally. I have a strong feeling that were this not a TV show, Danny would still be in the beginning stages of his physical therapy and not standing next to his daughter’s crib, rocking her to sleep in his arms.

CSI: NY, I call shenanigans on you for asking me to suspend my disbelief beyond reasonable limits and for wasting the opportunity to tell a compelling story that speaks to the experience of a segment of our population that is rarely represented by a major character on a television series. You had so much to work with but you took the easy way out. I’m disappointed, and it’s way too early in the season for that.

The rumors are official: there will be a crossover between all three CSI series this fall.   CSI’s Dr. Raymond Langston (Laurence Fishburne)  will appear on each of the three CSIs in a single week,  wrapping up on November 12th.  I stopped reading the article in the Chicago Tribune after learning this information because I don’t want to spoil the episodes for myself.

I think when shows like the CSI franchise, or the Law & Order franchise, do a crossover it can be pretty neat.  It can be even wilder when two shows you enjoy do a crossover, such as Law & Order and Homicide back in the day.  It can also be kind of a bummer when two shows crossover, one of which you don’t watch.  (For me that was CSI and Without A Trace.)

We just started watching the original CSI: Crime Scene Investigation again this season.  In fact, we spent a lot of time catching up on last season’s episodes during a Spike marathon last weekend.  I like Langston, and he certainly fills Grissom’s shoes very well, but there’s still part of me that thinks Catherine and/or Nick should get to grace the shores of Miami and New York in lieu of “the new guy.”  Of course, the point of the crossover might be to get skeptical fans that checked out with Grissom to check back in.

I think skeptical fans will be pleasantly surprised. Langston is as cerebral as Grissom, but very different. He’s certainly not a cloned character.  On the whole, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has done a nice job of evolving their characters, introducing new characters and retaining a familiarity that makes me want to watch it.

When Dick Wolf decided the world needed more than one Law and Order,  I was fairly skeptical that a spin off that closely related to another cop show would work.  I was still a skeptic when the folks at CSI decided to branch out with CSI:Miami and CSI: NY.   For the most part with these series I’ve found myself pleasantly surprised.  The producers took the formula, and in some cases key characters, and created a distinctly different world for these spinoffs to play in.

We watch Law and Order SVU and this season all 3 of the CSI shows, although I think my wife is more committed to viewing SVU and CSI: Miami than I am.  Plus, this season we’ve decided to start watching the original Law and Order and CSI after not viewing them for a few years.   I can’t speak for my wife, but I’m not fully convinced I want to commit to these shows, although I’m not ready to give up on them and go upstairs and play on the computer. ..yet.

So I think a Criminal Minds spinoff has a lot of potential.  Especially if you can get a marquee actor involved like Joe Mantegna.  I’m looking forward to seeing it.

Read the Hollywood Reporter story on the spinoff here.

Go to the Criminal Minds page on on CBS.com here.