Save Sir Harry Pearce's Job Facebook Fan Page

[BravoNine]

(15-11-2010 05:16 AM)Fidget Wrote:  

(15-11-2010 04:56 AM)BravoNine Wrote:  .

CSI survived the loss of three of its main stars in pretty much one season after 9 years with the departures of Grissom, Warrick, and Sara, and it still kept on going. It took a tough beating but got back onto its feet again. So really in the end, it's just about how willing are the fans to accept change and how willing is the network to keep the show going.

And CSI is not worth watching now

I didn't say that. All I said was that if CSI can survive the loss of Sara, Grissom, and Warrick, then Spooks can survive losing Harry.

I'm not the biggest CSI watcher, I'm more of a fan of CSI NY than the original. But original CSI took a tough fall after Grissom left and viewership dropped over 25% the next episode once Grissom was gone. In the height of its viewership, CSI was drawing in over 26 million viewers each night, it's still one of the highest recorded viewership numbers for a scripted drama, but now it only takes in an average 14 million viewers. It took people a while to get use to Laurence Fishburne's Raymond Langston, and to accept the loss of Grissom and Warrick, it helped that Sara returned later on. It was a rocky patchy road for a while but CSI got through it and while their ratings never quite recovered to its former glory, the show is still going, and most likely will be going for a while. CBS isn't in a hurry to get rid of its money drawing franchise.

And as for its worth and quality, some would say that CSI has lost its spark, lost its root. But that's up to each person to decide. Some still like CSI, still watches it, others don't. I don't really like their stunt casting very much, where they go get celebrities and famous people like singers to play an important guest roles, it sometimes ruins the story when it's obvious that these people can't act. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why CSI casted Justin Bieber into a recurring guest role.