#cptn stvngrntrgrs | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

addictedtostorytelling · 3 years

Note

Hiiii!!! Me again :^) I’ll go crazy if I think too much abt Grissom suffering from land sickness so I’ll change the pace here haha

I know you’re more privy to the little details from the show so I’m curious as to what your thoughts are on the “throwback” ID pictures they showed?

These bother me so much because the details are simply… incorrect??? Grissom’s eyes are blue and why does it say Captain? And Sara isn’t 5’7” - she’s 5’10” (well, Jorja is). So now I’m just confused. Is this really just carelessness on the props department’s side or is there something wrong with LVPD’s archive 😂 because even Hodges’ ID was a mess. although if it was faked, you’d think Sara or Grissom would’ve pointed it out already lol

Thank you so much for indulging all of our questions and sharing us your thoughts! <3

hi, @cptn-stvngrntrgrs!

i think the props are just bad, honestly.

like you mentioned, the hodges documents from the premiere were an absolute mess, and then the case files grissom was looking at last week somehow were even worse.

these old badges are just more of the same.

not only is the problem of the bad information basically universal to all prop documents we've seen so far, supposedly doctored or not, but the problem is also not one that's being acknowledged by any characters within the world of the show; that so, i've got to believe it's something that's not actually meant to be part of the narrative.

i mean, grissom straight up tells sara that the fucked up case files are "authentic," mentioning nothing of the fact that just about every detail on them is egregiously wrong, which means that to him, within the universe of the show, they must look okay.

we as the audience are not supposed to have noticed that none of the dates, descriptors, or even simple personal stats on these licenses, badges, case files, newspaper articles, etc. checks out.

clearly, the production crew doesn't either expect or even really want us to be screenshotting this stuff.

they're not intending for it to be read closely.

they just want us to get the gist of "oh, this is a case file!" or "this article is about hodges!" or whatever; they don't mean for us to read past the titles at the top of the documents, much less to try to find clues in the fine print.

as for the badges specifically, grissom's is one that was actually used on the original series back in s1 and sara's was used in s2.

though the version that they use for sara in the reboot also claims that she’s a forensic psychologist, which what the hell is up with that?

they were wrong on grissom's rank and eye color and sara's height back then, too.

yay for consistency, i guess?

why they were so off on what should have been some very straightforward information, i don't know, though i think the answer there is ultimately the same one as above: i.e., they never intended for us to look too closely at that stuff.

anyway, at the rate they're going with this, we'll probably see a lot more misinformation listed on prop documents before this season is over.

how far will they go to give grissom and sara a height difference they've never actually had?

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time.

#answered #cptn stvngrntrgrs #asks: csi #**#my meta #meta: vegas #meta: production #csi vegas #let's talk shop #cv 01x03 #csiverse

24 notes · View notes

addictedtostorytelling · 3 years

Note

HI I JUST FINISHED EP 2 and I’m not okay???? GSR’s banter is back in full force and I wasn’t ready (in a good way) 😭 however, for next week’s promo, what do you think Grissom meant by “honey, I got a problem” and Sara’s response of “if you need to hold onto something, hold onto me?”

I mean don’t get me wrong I squealed like a banshee upon hearing that but once I got a breather I was like ??? WAIT WHAT ??? Do you think his hearing loss is coming back? Or he has some other issues? sweet jesus havent these two gone through enough, can’t we just have old married couple domesticity and fluff???

And honestly your metas give me more insight towards the show and Sara and Grissom’s characterization than whatever out there’s released so thank you so much for indulging us and giving us your thoughts :3

also, from an anon:

Thoughts on the 1x03 promo? What kind of problem does Grissom have? I know that WP did comment that age has caught up with Grissom, however, that could be taken into context of him not being as aware of the new technology that is available. I know some have noted the ear thing, which is possible, but nervous that it is something more serious. Hard to tell, and promos are made to get us to be excited or worry. Your thoughts?

hi, @cptn-stvngrntrgrs and anon!

promos tend to be deceptive, in that they're purposefully designed to make everything seem as dramatic as possible so that people will tune in to watch the thing they're promoting.

one of the primary ways they amp up the drama is by using episode dialogue out of context.

that so, i don't think we can be 100% certain that a) the "honey, i got a problem" and "if you need to hold onto something, hold onto me" lines are actually part of the same conversation or at least that they occur sequentially, and/or b) the lines directly align with the scenes they're shown with.

i mean, the lines might go together, and they might pair with those images—sara's line for sure is said during the hug, as we can see her lips moving right along with it; however, it's less clear if grissom's line goes with the image it's shown with (or at least if all of the line does, beyond just the "honey" part)—but it's also highly possible that we're seeing/hearing things out of sequence.

just based on the fact that grissom's "honey, i got a problem" line doesn't actually name what that problem is, there's got to be at least some dialogue in-between that announcement from him and sara telling him to hold onto her. after all, she has to be aware of what's actually upsetting him before she can know how to comfort him, right? so there's at least a minute or two of discussion in that scene that we're missing, if the two lines/images do even go together at all.

certainly, we're seeing/hearing them without context, at the very least.

consequently, it's really hard to make educated guesses about what anything means.

lots of conjecture but very little in the way of definitive answers under the "keep reading," if you're interested.

so.

grissom's "problem" could be any number of things.

he could be experiencing hearing loss again, for sure;

however, he also might have some other health problem;

alternately, maybe whatever's vexing him might not be health-related at all but rather has something that has to do with the investigation. for instance, perhaps there's some counterfeit evidence that's come up that he can't account for, or maybe the folks from ia or the district attorney have him on the line for something (legally), given that he was hodges's supervisor;

maybe it's something to do with him reacclimating to criminalistics, like he doesn't know how to use some particular technology or he's rusty on his procedures;

maybe he messed up on processing a crucial piece of evidence and his "honey, i got a problem" is him about to admit his mistake to sara;

maybe something anomalous has come up as he's been working and he doesn't know how to make heads or tails of it;

maybe there's some past detail that's essential to the case that he can't remember because so much time has passed;

potentially, he could just be feeling overwhelmed by how fast the case is moving, all of the new technology at the lab, him and sara being under scrutiny, etc. and need some reassurance;

etc., etc.

honestly, that line could be something as serious as him being very sick or as benign as "i don't know how to use this new tool because i've been out of the field for twelve years. honey, please help!" and at this point, it's impossible to say on which end of the spectrum we should place it.

while billy's delivery does sound worried, he's also whispering, so it's hard to know if there's actual worry in his voice or if it just sounds that way because he's being quiet.

sara's line (and the hug) are also equally ambiguous.

she could be responding to bad news about grissom's health (like that he's realized he's losing his hearing again);

however, she might also be comforting him after they've been subpoenaed by the da or had a rough interview with ia (particularly if it’s a “if you can’t definitively prove hodges’s innocence, then you’re going to jail, too, dr. grissom” type of situation);

alternatively, maybe they've just gotten bad news about one of their former convictions being overturned;

maybe there's something else that's happened that has him rattled that we as of yet don't know about;

maybe she’s comforting him because he’s overwhelmed by the gravity of the case and their circumstances;

etc., etc.

jorja's delivery does certainly sound grave, but, again, we don't really have enough to go on to say why.

looking back on franchise history, when the writers of the original series initially came up with grissom's s2/s3 hearing loss storyline, they did so because they feared possible cancellation, so they wanted to give themselves an "out" in case they needed to wrap the show in a hurry.

their idea was that if they weren't renewed at the end of s3, they could say, "well, grissom's surgery failed, so now he can't work anymore, and since he's the main character, the show is just over;" however, if the show was brought back for s4, they could say, "grissom's surgery was a success, so now it's back to business as usual for him. the show will go on!"

it was a kind of easy-out, easy-in device for them.

obviously, at this point, the fate of csi: vegas is still very much up in the air.

the showrunners want it to be a multiple-season series, but it remains to be seen if it'll get renewed past s1.

it also remains to be seen if billy petersen will return to the show even if it does get renewed, given that he (unlike the rest of the cast) only signed a one-season contract.

with all of that uncertainty about the show's future and billy's future on the show, it's definitely possible that the reboot writers took a page out of the original show's book and decided to saddle grissom with a problem that could either be permanent and show-ending (or at least grissom-on-the-show-ending) or reversible and not depending on their renewal status.

of course, if they did so, that would presuppose that they’re going to close out this season on a cliffhanger, which means that in the event of cancellation, we're all gonna be left in the lurch.

the "grissom is going deaf" line is a tried and true one in that regard, so maybe they're reaching for it now just as their predecessors did back in 2003.

however, that trick is one that has been pulled before, and there are potentially many other ways they could finagle a possible grissom exit (if billy doesn't come back for s2) or the show's end (if the show is indeed cancelled after s1) that don't involve grissom losing his hearing at all, so they could take another route, as well.

to speculate a little on how the writers might play things (based on no evidence but pure storytelling sensibilities):

so far, these writers have shown themselves to be very conscious of how beloved grissom is as a character, so i don't believe they'd seriously consider doing anything that might kill him off or make him permanently unable to appear on the show in the future (i.e., that would preclude possible guest spots).

and especially not because i highly doubt that billy and jorja would've come back to the franchise and allowed their characters to be pulled out of their happy ending in paradise if that were the ultimate endgame.

i mean, tptb might do something that made grissom unable to continue working as a csi, but they wouldn't be either so stupid or so cruel as to kill off the face of the franchise completely, you know?

doing so would be the worst possible decision they could make after bringing him back.

it would also render sara basically unusable as a character.

if he's permanently incapacitated, she quits to take care of him. if he dies, she quits because she's fucking destroyed and in mourning. either way, she's not solving crimes anymore, never mind what jorja's multiyear contract says.

that so, i've gotta believe that whatever is troubling him doesn't make him unable to appear on the show anymore and isn't ultimately lethal.

i've also gotta believe that it's something that's either come up fairly quickly or at least that he's only become fully aware of recently (since arriving in vegas), given that he's just telling sara about it now.

further, if he is actually telling sara about the problem in the scene that's on screen when the dialogue plays in the promo, then whatever the problem is is either something he feels comfortable talking to her about in public OR else something he has no choice but to talk to her about in public (even if he'd prefer to give her the news privately).

which, again, suggests that he's probably not, like, actually dying, because, holy god, he's not about to drop that news on her while they're at the lab!

there's a strong possibility that whatever it is is relevant in that moment—so, for example, if he is experiencing a recurrence of his otosclerosis, that he's having difficulty hearing sara right then; or if it's something case-related, he's just uncovered new/anomalous evidence in the last few seconds, and he wants her to take a look at it immediately.

finally, whatever it is must be something that the writers feel they can play out in just ten episodes, which rules out any kind of slow, degenerative illness; it has to be something that can fit into a fully-formed arc with a beginning, middle, and end within the limited amount of time they have.

admittedly, this speculation doesn't so much tell us what grissom's problem potentially is so much as it tells us what it's (probably) not.

the most we can say are that there are many possibilities on the table, though anything resulting in his death seems unlikely.

the hearing loss storyline is certainly one possibility, but it's far from the only one.

elsewise, we can't really conclude much of anything based on just a few seconds of (potentially deceptive) promo footage; unfortunately, there's just not enough to go on.

sorry i can't be more definitive!

thank you (both) for the questions, and cptn-stvngrntrgrs for your very kind words! please feel welcome to send more asks any time.

#answered #cptn stvngrntrgrs #anon #asks: csi #**#my meta #meta: vegas #speculation csi #csi vegas #cv 01x03 #let's talk shop #csiverse

18 notes · View notes

addictedtostorytelling · 2 years

Note

Hello!!! Hope you’re doing well!!! I’m back for my weekly csi: vegas gsr freak out 😂 despite being baited and deceived by not getting that gsr kiss, that scene in the end almost dissolved me into giggles! (they finally got Sara and Grissom’s sides of the bed right!) I loved the interrogation scenes, esp Sara talking about the events of Nesting Dolls and them just constantly referring to each other as “my husband” and “my wife” 🥺 I also love the callbacks to the old episodes, especially Rashomama - aka my fave episode!!

Quick question though: did we finally get confirmation that they basically got together shortly after Nesting Dolls? When Sara said that “he was just there”, I got the picture that Grissom stayed with her through the night just until his shift (like you mentioned in your metas) and I could also see him being with her (or like, constantly checking up/visiting her) throughout her suspension. This information feels very vindicating lol

Thanks again for answering our questions ^u^ I love seeing all the hype and excitement on here!!

hi, @cptn-stvngrntrgrs!

so i've talked about this issue a little bit here, but i don't think we did get confirmation that grissom and sara first get together in episode 05x13 "nesting dolls."

episode 05x13 "nesting dolls" has, of course, always been a possibility for the get-together date, and it remains one now.

though i don’t myself think that episode 05x13 “nesting dolls” is actually the get-together date, i do acknowledge it as the earliest possible point at which the (vegas) get-together could have potentially happened.

however, i don't believe that what sara says in reboot episode 01x04 "long pig" necessarily confirms that it is the date™—and, in fact, the more i watch the interview scene, the less convinced i am that that's what she's actually even talking about at all.

for me, context in this scene is important.

i've talked here about what exactly sara is trying to accomplish during this exchange with nora cross, and i think her goals very much factor in to the information she conveys.

remember: she's trying to get cross to view her as an overly-emotional wife trying to defend her husband's reputation. in order to present herself that way, she is pretending to be much more upset than she actually is about cross's earlier assertions that she and grissom allowed themselves to be distracted by their "whirlwind romance" back in 2006, to the point where they didn't notice hodges fabricating evidence right under their noses.

she starts off the interview by circling back to this point, telling cross that the reason she walked out on their previous meeting was that she disliked cross's misconception that she and grissom were too swept up in their relationship to pay attention to their jobs.

she then attempts to "set the record straight" by explaining to cross how they've always been dedicated to their work and that, in reality, theirs was a slow-burn romance that took place over a long period of time.

from there, she goes on to talk about grissom's temperament, linking the idea that he is methodical and has to see every angle of how a thing works before he'll involve himself with it to the nature of their relationship itself.

in saying all of these things, she wants cross to understand that grissom is "slow to warm up" and needs to be convinced of something completely before he comes around to it.

as i talk about in the post linked above,

to this end, sara commiserates with cross about how stubborn grissom can be. she then lays the groundwork for the idea that grissom could potentially be persuaded to change his mind (under the right circumstances) by broadcasting two important ideas: first, that the way to get grissom on one’s side is to “show him her cards;” and, second, that once he’s on one’s side, grissom will make for an excellent ally because he possesses an unflinching loyalty to the truth.

sara makes these points first by telling the story of how after years of unsuccessful romantic overtures toward grissom, the thing that finally changed the tide of their relationship was her telling him her whole backstory so that he could understand where she was coming from and why she acted the way she did. she then speaks of grissom’s stalwart character and how once he is shown the evidence and given a chance to work through it, he will come to an objective opinion that he cannot be dissuaded from.

when sara tells cross the story of the events of episode 05x13 "nesting dolls," she has some takeaways she intends for cross: first, that she and grissom didn't get "swept up" into a hot and heavy romance but rather gradually eased into being together after bonding over their work; second and relatedly, that grissom doesn't allow himself to be rushed into anything ("most people are motivated by impulses: desire, anger, fear. there aren't any gears that shift for my husband until he sees how they work. but you put him in a lab, you give him time to study, he finds his way"); and third, that grissom is very much a "look before he leaps" kind of guy who needs to understand what's in front of him completely before he'll feel comfortable engaging.

sara frames these takeaways as if she is simply defending both grissom's character and the nature of her and grissom's relationship from cross's scrutiny, though, of course, in reality, what she's looking to do is to put the idea that cross needs to coax grissom out by showing him the evidence in the hodges case into cross's head.

#subliminal messaging

so.

all of the above is to say that when sara tells cross the story of grissom coming over to her apartment and learning her history, her intended message is very much NOT "i'm going to tell you exactly when we first crossed the line from coworkers to couple”—because, frankly, that message would just play into cross's perception that her and grissom's relationship was this sweeping affair that distracted them from their work.

though of course it's possible that grissom and sara did in fact first hook up on this date, that's not what sara is either admitting to or trying to focus on here.

rather, her point is “we bonded over our work" (hence why she mentions that this interaction took place “one night, during a particularly tough case”) and "our coming together was both by its nature and due to grissom's temperament a gradual thing" (hence why she clarifies that “after that, he was just there”).

looking at what sara says from cross's perspective—without any of the knowledge that we as viewers possess regarding the s5 gsr timeline or the overall trajectory of their relationship—there is nothing that would signal to HER that sara is telling her the date that she and grissom first hooked up.

all that's present in the “text” is “this is a significant date in our relationship history because it's the date when he first started to understand me (and from there became comfortable enough with me that we could eventually get together).”

sara doesn’t even actually clarify to cross that this event took place at her apartment rather than at the lab. she also doesn’t mention that she was at the time on suspension. by prefacing her story with the words “one night, during a particularly tough case,” she makes it sound like this interaction was something that happened during a shift. cross has no reason to imagine grissom and sara sitting in sara’s living room, as was actually the case.

the reason we as viewers might infer that sara's actually talking about something more sexual in nature is because of the prior knowledge we're bringing to the table.

i.e., because we know, based on what sara explains to ecklie in episode 08x02 "a la cart," that she and grissom first “became involved” sometime in 2005 and episode 05x13 “nesting dolls” does fit within that 2005 timeline; because we are aware that there is an unaccounted-for window of time between when we last see grissom at sara's apartment and when he shows up at the lab to defend her to catherine and ecklie when some kind of consummation could have potentially taken place; because we’ve seen that the conversation took place at sara’s apartment, where it feasibly could have segued into physical intimacy, as opposed to at the lab or on a scene, where it most probably would not have done so; because we've observed that their relationship does seem markedly different before and after the events of the episode; etc.

however, that's not what's actually being discussed if we look at what exactly is in the words that sara says.

any conclusion to that end would just be extratextual inference.

that so.

again, while it is still—just as it has always been—very much possible to view episode 05x13 “nesting dolls” as the date when grissom and sara first get together, it's also still very much possible to simply view episode 05x13 "nesting dolls" as an emotional turning-point in their relationship (with the actual “getting-together” happening sometime later in late s5 or early s6).

sara's ambiguous phrasing (“after that, he was just there”) leaves both possibilities open to us.

likewise, in terms of timeframe, she could mean that he stayed with her that night until he went back to the lab to talk to catherine and ecklie AND/OR that he continued to check in on her throughout the course of her suspension week and into the future. those possibilities are both open to us, as well.

so, all considered, i think that for us as fans, the take-home here is that we get to keep our headcanons, whatever they may be.

if one believes that episode 05x13 “nesting dolls” is indeed the date™, then one can view what sara says during her interview within that context; however, if one believes that the date™ takes place sometime after the events of episode 05x13 “nesting dolls,” then one can take what sara says during her interview as confirmation of that perspective instead.

i don't think anything has been 100% confirmed or denied here as, really, that's not even the topic of conversation at hand when sara is talking to cross.

there's still room for multiple interpretations, so we can all pick the one we like and go with that—at least until we get a surer canon confirmation.

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time.

#answered #cptn stvngrntrgrs #asks: csi #**#my meta #meta: vegas #meta: gsr #csi vegas #gsr #cv 01x04 #let's talk shop #csiverse

15 notes · View notes

addictedtostorytelling · 3 years

Note

Hi!!! I’m so excited for CSI: Vegas and have been rereading your metas!!!! I’m curious though: in one of your posts talking about how Grissom and Sara confessed to Ecklie when the team could’ve kept it a secret, you said that the legality of the matter is also a factor in why they decided to come clean.

Do you think their relationship in the early seasons of the og show would be inferred to in the reboot? (Besides the part where everyone knows they’re married now and come together as a pair lol) Like could that possibly come up once IA starts to investigate the falsification of evidence that apparently took place while Grissom was still running the night shift? I mean, if lawyers are gonna dig up dirt against the crime lab then they could definitely point out the “ethical violations” of a supervisor dating his subordinate. Would that even be possible or am I reaching here? Either way, I’m so excited to see all of them back together!! Thank you :3

hi, @cptn-stvngrntrgrs!

i suppose that it's possible that a lawyer could bring up grissom and sara's past lab policy violations in light of the fabrication case, but i'd be highly surprised if any do, just because, in terms of this particular legal situation, said violations are kind of beside the point.

like.

back in the day in 2007 or 2008, when the news of grissom and sara being together first got out, it might have made sense for a defense lawyer to raise the issue of their rules violation in an attempt to get a conviction overturned, and particularly if said lawyer had no other grounds on which to make an appeal.

barring the discovery of new exculpatory evidence, finding clear proof of corruption or tampering or the law (as opposed to just department policy) having been broken, or identifying any other kind of actual legal grounds on which to appeal the conviction, pointing fingers at two of the senior criminalists on a case and saying "they were behaving unethically at the time when they helped to secure my client's conviction" could have maybe been enough to at least get the defense counsel somewhere—like say to a preliminary hearing.

however, even the fact of grissom and sara's violation probably wouldn't have been enough in and of itself to get the whole conviction tossed out automatically, as the defense still would have had to prove that the conviction had actually been made wrongfully, on legal grounds.

not so with this fabrication case, where they've got much more a slam dunk appeal lined up.

evidence in old cases has certifiably been tampered with, and everybody knows as much; the lab is even admitting that such is the case.

the question then becomes, "since there is fabricated evidence in play, does the fact that there is mean that these previous convictions are invalid?"

and so for a defense attorney looking to get a client's conviction overturned, their job then becomes to establish that the fabricated evidence in their case introduces enough reasonable doubt surrounding their client's culpability that the conviction should be vacated.

they don't actually have to explain why the fabrication was perpetrated or even specifically identify whom the perpetrator was.

those are whole other issues in themselves.

instead of having to prove that night shift supervisor grissom may have potentially coerced csi level iii sidle to do x, y, or z unethical thing due to their illicit sexual/romantic relationship back when they were investigating cases together in the early aughts, the defense can just point to the actual falsified bloodwork or counterfeited trace evidence and say, "regardless of how that got there or why, and even irrespective of who put it there, the fact that it is there calls into question the grounds on which my client was convicted. i therefore move to have the conviction overturned."

—so in that sense, the fact that grissom and sara spent two years violating lab policy while they were working together as criminalists is kind of extraneous.

it's less important to conjecture about why the fabrication may have been perpetrated and by whom than it is just to prove that it was fabricated and that the fact that it was led to a wrongful (or at least legally untenable) conviction, you know?

that so, i think it's much more likely that if anyone were to bring up grissom and sara's "past sins," it would be the internal affairs people—because they're the ones who actually have some interest in figuring who at the lab is to blame for the fabrication.

they might, in the course of looking at grissom and sara as potential suspects, consider that if they had been willing to lie about one thing, they could have also lied about other things, as well.

for them, it would be a question of character.

they might say, "well, what else didn't we know about them back then? what might they have been willing to do for each other?"

they might also look at a particular compromised case and go, "supervisor grissom and csi sidle worked this case back together in '06, when they were secretly dating. did they perhaps conspire together as a couple to plant evidence?"

—but, even then, i think it's kinda a long-shot that they're going to fall too far down that particular rabbit hole.

i mean, we already know that grissom and sara are cleared fairly early on in the investigation, or else they undoubtedly wouldn't be allowed to actively take part in the proceedings going forward.

like.

the fact that they're an official part of things—with shiny new "consultant" badges and everything—presupposes that nobody finds any truly incriminating evidence against them.

so even if someone from ia does end up looking into their past, i don't believe that they're going to find anything damning there.

otherwise, you know max roby wouldn't be letting them anywhere near her lab.

like.

yes, grissom and sara dated, and, yes, them doing so was in violation of lab policy, but they didn't also knowingly falsify their cases.

they're not actually the ones to blame for this fabrication.

so.

all of this rambling is to say, "while it's always possible grissom and sara's past as chronic rule-breakers will be brought up, i kind of doubt it's going to happen or at least i think that if it does, it's not going to be a big or lasting thing."

after all, this issue is so much broader than just them and their relationship.

it's the whole lab that's under scrutiny.

that's my take anyway.

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time.

#answered #cptn-stvngrntrgrs #asks: csi #**#speculation csi #let's talk shop #csiverse

4 notes · View notes