Replacing Gil Grissom - Fishburne or Russell or Malkovich

Oh how the rumors are flying now. With the fact that William Petersen will be ending his well-known role of Gil Grissom on C.S.I. the race has been on for producers to find a replacement. Previously I stated that I felt without the presence of Grissom the show was more than likely to fold. I may have spoken too soon.

The buzz is out stating that Laurence Fishburne will be stepping in and heading the C.S.I. original. Now that is a surprise to me. Fishburne is a definite presence and is renown for his roles in movies, like Apocalypse Now, The Matrix, The Tuskegee Airmen as well as stage like Thurgood. Obviously the producers of C.S.I. are looking for serious star power to fill the gap Petersen will create.

Is this enough to make the show continue to be interesting and viable? That’s hard to say. The purported storyline that would go with the character replacing Grissom is that the character would have

“same genetic profile as a serial killer but hasn't previously acted on any homicidal impulses.”

Now what that exactly means I’m not sure. It could be a spin in the series similar to the premise on the cable television show Dexter – where the lead is a serial killer but works within the legal system. It could be that the thought of such could drive the back stories on the television program.

Either way I am sure that Laurence Fishburne is more than capable enough to lead this popular show.

But the Hollywood rumor mill has a few other choices in mind as well. Also slated to be in the running for this program is John Malkovich and Kurt Russell. Both are strong film leading men, just like Fishburne.

For me, considering the proposed storyline that goes with the top spot, I would prefer Kurt Russell I think. He has a hard edge (like the Snake Plisken character from Escape from New York) to his characters that could be played well off of his generally calm demeanor. I can easily see him as a very dark, but highly charming character.

It’s not that Laurence Fishburne or John Malkovich can’t do the same, they have. But I think Russell can be more believable as a vile, sinister, evil and yet deceptive character. He really has the look for it.

So here is a question, who would you prefer as the lead of C.S.I. – with the understanding that he may or may not also be a serial killer:

• Laurence Fishburne
  
  
• John Malkovich
  
  
• Kurt Russell
  

Television gets old and new

So there is a bunch of news in the world of television. There is an old friend returning and a current favorite departing.

The first item I noticed deals with the loss of a current favorite. I really enjoy CSI, the original. The character of William Petersen is that something extra you don’t often see on any program. He’s unabashedly intelligent, loyal, dedicated, and relatively issue free. In current television and a media that’s obsessed with the quirks of every personality, real or imagined, you really don’t see this.

But after soo many years, Gil Grissom will be leaving CSI for good. And I believe the series will end shortly thereafter.

Face it, Gil makes the show go round. Unlike other programs like Law & Order, or E.R., where every character is replaceable CSI is driven from the top down. [Note that in E.R. the loss of several actors – George Clooney, Anthony Edwards, Noah Wyle – the ratings have diminished with each exit. This show should have ended the day that Wyle left as his character was the central theme that made it make all sense. Since his departure I know none that watch it. A similar statement can be made about Jerry Orbauch and his Lenny Briscoe character.] The show can survive the loss of most any other character, and has, but Grissom is the glue that keeps it together.

So I think this next season will be the end of this program. What a shame.

But the timing could be worse. 2 or 3 years ago such an impending thought might have meant that yet another reality program would be hitting the airwaves (I think the only thing left was to watch celebrities and ordinary attention deprived adults make coffee). Alas that trend if finally dying, none to soon either. So the void needs something big to fill it.

That honor will likely go to Michael J. Fox. He is returning to the small screen. But not in a series. Still the fact that less competition will exist and quality acting will be available was not missed on Dennis Leary. He convinced Fox to join him in his hit show Rescue Me.

If you have not seen the drama, then you aren’t watching FX Network, and I can’t imagine why not. Rescue Me is hard to describe. It’s the life of a fire station, particularly the Dennis Leary lead. His life is enough of a mess to make Perez Hilton look normal, and Britney Spears sane. But it is written honestly and with intelligence. It has moments to challenge your views, and make you laugh. It’s almost real, and that’s where the pleasure is.

Michael J Fox will add to this. He is playing a man in a wheelchair, which plays on his known illness. He is the love interest of the overly jealous and easily prone to violent outburst Leary’s estranged wife. If you want to see drama imagine the reactions of a man who saves lives on a regular basis, is jealous, is violent, who occasionally speaks with dead people, as he hits a man in a wheelchair. It’s a low act and he will be fighting with himself over that, as Fox plays the moment with a performance that we rarely get to see.

Or at least that’s what I’m expecting. We shall see.

Minorities, Television and 27 percent

27. That number is a huge statement. It represents the percentage of the population of this nation that is Black/African American and Hispanic combined. That is a large number. Many of the people this number represents are concentrated in metropolitan areas throughout the nation. Those population centers, such as NYC, L.A., Washington D.C., Gary Indiana, and others are huge hubs for broadcasting and help determine what gets on television.

Yet it is interesting that broadcast television, and the cable networks overall, seem to believe that portraying the nation as virtually all white is more accurate. This is only slightly better than the portrayal found in movies in general. Why?

Not only is the lack of diversity to be found on the screens but behind them as well. As noted by the Multi-Ethnic Media Coalition, changes have been made but it could be much better. Minority writers, directors and other support for the shows pale in comparison to the national figures. In 2003 the NAACP reported that only 41.8 million dollars was spent on minority provided services and goods by the reporting broadcasters (the next announcement by the NAACP is in Juanuary and the only data I could find was from '03). That number is for 3 major broadcasters who spend over a million dollars per episode for strongly rated shows, or significantly more depending on how much each lead actor recieves (ie. each member of Friends, Seinfeld, and as I recall the lead of Fraiser recieving 1 million per show). Why?

All of these figures and data fail to include the impact of television commercials in this data. Part of my views on television commercials targeted to minorities can be seen in my comments on Burger King. The virtual absense of hispanics and asians is absurd. The way that I feel, Black/African Americans are given second class status in commercials and it is maddening.

The facts taken in total make a profound statement, that is seen and felt not only in the US but also throughout the world. Broadcasters appear, in my opinion, to state that any non-white is relatively unimportant. That no attempt at providing quality programming targeted to these groups is required or of practical use. Perhaps it could be summarized as 'the less seen the better'? That offends me.

The characters portrayed on television are more than just mindless figures. They are, in the best of shows, figures of inspiration and mirror feelings we have ourselves. How many young girls are inspired by seeing Ms. Geena Davis as the president of the United States? How many 'geeky' or 'nerdy' kids are motivated by the actions of Mr. William L. Petersen's Gil Grissom? And what motivation or inspiration is being given to non-white children/adults?

Who are the women, and the show, of Desperate Housewives trying to connect with? I mean that as a fantasy what are men to think? And how are women to feel? That only white slender women can be sexy? (Sex and the City also comes to mind on this point) I haven't seen the show {I only watch the original CSI, Law and Order, and the West Wing} but this is what I get just from television commercials and news releases.

Movies are even worse. Only white males can be leads in complex, quality, widely distributed movies. While Mr. Terrence Howard proves this wrong, take a moment and count the total number of major studio films {and probably independant films can be included} released this year. Take out the number of movies with black leads. I doubt the comparision will be anything close to 27% or even 12.9% (percentage of Black/African Americans). So what is Hollywood also saying to the world, that will see an even more narrowly targeted group of these movies. This is interesting when it can be estimated that Whites [defined as Non-African, non-middle eastern individuals that are catagoriezed as Caucasian, and includes Spain] are not the world majority, nor close to it.

Basically I am annoyed. Annoyed that broadcasters and movie studios continue to ignore and shun "minorities" in all aspects. That television commercials treat non-whites as immaterial, and yet expect us to purchase their goods. That the attempt to reach for more in life is not an idea to promote to non-whites. And most of all, too few even notice that this is happening and say nothing when its told to them.

This is what I think, what about you?