'CSI: Cyber' canceled by CBS after 2 seasons

[mvcg66b3r]

This is the end of a billion-dollar franchise. CBS has canceled CSI: Cyber, the last spinoff from the forensic procedural drama that took television by storm 16 years ago.

CSI: Cyber ran for two abbreviated seasons. The series, starring then-newly minted Oscar winner Patricia Arquette, launched in midseason 2015 in the Wednesday time slot where the mothership series had spent three seasons before relocating to Sunday for its final run. After so-so ratings, Cyber got a second-season renewal with CSI leading man Ted Danson joining for a season-long arc.

The show struggled on Sunday, where it was often bumped into late-night primetime by football. The network gave it a couple of airings on Wednesday this midseason, where the show did marginally better, to get more feedback before making a renewal decision. Overall, CSI: Cyber was consistent in the ratings, starting its second season with 6.79 million viewers and a 1.0 demo rating in Live+same day and ending with 6.32 million a 1.0 rating. By CBS network standards, that is pretty low.

Still, by corporate standards, the show, produced by CBS TV Studios, was a profitable asset which makes a lot of money internationally as an offshoot from the CSI franchise, thus making a business case for renewal. That was not enough to save the series, with the network ultimately passing on a third season.

https://deadline.com/2016/05/csi-cyber-canceled-2-seasons-cbs-1201754436/

 

[Oscar Madison]

Good premise. Hack writing. The episodes after the first few got really predictable and formulaic. And they jumped the shark by dumping Peter MacNicol to recycle Ted Danson. It's one thing to start a show. It's another to keep it fresh. That's how it failed.

 

[LKellerIII]

I would think the entire CSI franchise had jumped the shark by now. Dick Wolf was smart enough to recycle his franchise with a Chicago focus, and it was a wise move to start with "Fire," which hadn't been done for awhile.

Yes, I do realize that L&O SVU soldiers on, but it's likely in its waning days

 

[vchimpanzee]

I never watched any of the "CSI" shows. I heard they were graphic when they would show the bodies, though that was just an excuse. "Body of Proof" was almost as bad, but that was more of a comedy.

This one I was thinking about watching. The Sunday problem on the East Coast was one reason I'm glad I didn't. Having to remember to add time for football delays was a problem.

 

[davideduardo]

Yes, I do realize that L&O SVU soldiers on, but it's likely in its waning days

L&O SVU does very well against Empire in its current position, and was renewed for an 18th season. The question is likely whether it can tie the 20 seasons of the franchise original; it's already among the top 5 longest running scripted dramas. And critics appear to mostly think season 17 was better than the prior several years.

 

[landtuna]

I would think the entire CSI franchise had jumped the shark by now. Dick Wolf was smart enough to recycle his franchise with a Chicago focus, and it was a wise move to start with "Fire," which hadn't been done for awhile.

Yes, I do realize that L&O SVU soldiers on, but it's likely in its waning days

As far as I am concerned CSI jumped the shark when they began those idiotic stories focusing upon each individual agent years ago - specifically I am thinking of the one where the agent was put underground in an ant nest. I think I saw that same story back in the 50's on Ramar of the Jungle.

 

[LKellerIII]

As far as I am concerned CSI jumped the shark when they began those idiotic stories focusing upon each individual agent years ago - specifically I am thinking of the one where the agent was put underground in an ant nest. I think I saw that same story back in the 50's on Ramar of the Jungle.

I never watched the CSI shows with any frequency because I found many of the plot gimmicks laughably hokey. I recall one episode of CSI Miami that involved people being held hostage in an unknown location during a hurricane. They figured out the location by checking the "storm window database"

In another episode, they figured out the make, model and year of a vehicle involved in a crime (it was an early 92 Chevy Caprice) through a mold of the tire treads. One of the forensic scientists revealed that the car had "1992 Caprice tires." As anybody who has ever owned a car knows, tires are not specific to a make, model or year.

These shows use a lot of similarly ridiculous plot-shortcuts to move the action along. For me, if a show is going to pretend to be realistic, it should BE at least somewhat realistic.

 

[landtuna]

I never watched the CSI shows with any frequency because I found many of the plot gimmicks laughably hokey. I recall one episode of CSI Miami that involved people being held hostage in an unknown location during a hurricane. They figured out the location by checking the "storm window database"

In another episode, they figured out the make, model and year of a vehicle involved in a crime (it was an early 92 Chevy Caprice) through a mold of the tire treads. One of the forensic scientists revealed that the car had "1992 Caprice tires." As anybody who has ever owned a car knows, tires are not specific to a make, model or year.

These shows use a lot of similarly ridiculous plot-shortcuts to move the action along. For me, if a show is going to pretend to be realistic, it should BE at least somewhat realistic.

Believe it or not there is a smidgen of plausibility hidden in that story line.

Although cars do not necessarily have specific brands of tires ongoing they do tend to come from the factory with OEM tire brands and sizes. From these the forensic scientists can determine the likely car brand and year (although in a populous car state like yours that wouldn't be much help isolating the actual vehicle). It would help though if other evidence were to isolate a car owner who owned that brand and year.

The other thing tire molds can do is tell the brand and size of the tire which can then be searched against recent sales or, in the case of a balding or damaged tire, a specific tire. Again it is a small shot in the dark but that's why the cops try to capture every little bit of evidence no matter how seemingly innocuous.

The original few years of CSI were interesting but one did have to ignore the speed with which the agents discovered important facts. It sure doesn't happen that fast in real life. And in your town of S.F. it wouldn't help much at all as car ownership is not pervasive. Maybe that's why the series was located in Nevada.

 

[LKellerIII]

Believe it or not there is a smidgen of plausibility hidden in that story line.

Although cars do not necessarily have specific brands of tires ongoing they do tend to come from the factory with OEM tire brands and sizes. From these the forensic scientists can determine the likely car brand and year (although in a populous car state like yours that wouldn't be much help isolating the actual vehicle). It would help though if other evidence were to isolate a car owner who owned that brand and year.

The other thing tire molds can do is tell the brand and size of the tire which can then be searched against recent sales or, in the case of a balding or damaged tire, a specific tire. Again it is a small shot in the dark but that's why the cops try to capture every little bit of evidence no matter how seemingly innocuous.

The original few years of CSI were interesting but one did have to ignore the speed with which the agents discovered important facts. It sure doesn't happen that fast in real life. And in your town of S.F. it wouldn't help much at all as car ownership is not pervasive. Maybe that's why the series was located in Nevada.

The CSI episode about the tires was circa 2010 or so - so in that scenario, so a 1992 Caprice would have been 18 years old, and likely on its 4th or 5th set of tires. If it had been a brand-new car just off the lot...maybe.

My other favorite hokey CSI plot gimmick is the fingerprint analyzer-computer that scans through millions of sets of prints in a few seconds and identifies the perp almost instantly. I was actually naïve enough to believe that such a thing existed, but then I read to the contrary. I learned that identifying fingerprints still involves pain-staking analysis by human beings, and is often not reliable because the prints are rarely clear, or only a partial, etc.

 

[landtuna]

The CSI episode about the tires was circa 2010 or so - so in that scenario, so a 1992 Caprice would have been 18 years old, and likely on its 4th or 5th set of tires. If it had been a brand-new car just off the lot...maybe.

And, the car owner would have most likely opted for a different brand by that time.

My other favorite hokey CSI plot gimmick is the fingerprint analyzer-computer that scans through millions of sets of prints in a few seconds and identifies the perp almost instantly. I was actually naïve enough to believe that such a thing existed, but then I read to the contrary. I learned that identifying fingerprints still involves pain-staking analysis by human beings, and is often not reliable because the prints are rarely clear, or only a partial, etc.

Having spent my professional life in Information Technology it always made me laugh when the fingerprint analyzer displayed two sets of prints as it rifled through the database. There would be no need for it to do so. It would be a waste of time. And no human could possibly follow the displays as they were being shown anyway so the point is mute.

Alas. Such is Hollywood.

 

[JeeperOne]

These shows use a lot of similarly ridiculous plot-shortcuts to move the action along. For me, if a show is going to pretend to be realistic, it should BE at least somewhat realistic.

Why do you think A&E has pretty much done away with them in lieu of more realistic shows (Even if they come out looking more like documentaries than entertainment shows) ??

Sure it still has the Bates Motel but that show isn't supposed to be realistic anyway

Cheers & 73

 

[umfan]

Patricia Arquette was a very curious casting choice for this series. Seriously, she got lucky with Medium and has done next to nothing else. Hollywood slobbered all over her for 'Boyhood', but that was more an inside the tinsel town bubble thing. She's not a great, or even very good actress, and even less credible in an action series.

I'm not surprised the show failed.

 

[LKellerIII]

Patricia Arquette was a very curious casting choice for this series. Seriously, she got lucky with Medium and has done next to nothing else. Hollywood slobbered all over her for 'Boyhood', but that was more an inside the tinsel town bubble thing. She's not a great, or even very good actress, and even less credible in an action series.

I'm not surprised the show failed.

Agreed - though I was quite surprised how good she was in Boardwalk Empire.