CSI: Vegas got away from what made the first season a mixed bag. But the push for a “season arc” made the second outing disappointing.
My first impression of season two? Catherine Willows (Marg Helgenberger) is back! However, fast forward 7 months to the end of the season and I am like: Why is she even here?
The second season is more than double the episodes compared to the first one, and it feels like it. Aside from the standard “crime of the week”, the show is basically 2.5 seasons into one. There’s the reason for Willows suddenly appearing out of nowhere. That plot ends way too early. And then we get a serial killer. The writers give us the impression that this is the “crime of the season” only to disappoint us by ending it too early and too rushed.
And around the end, out of nowhere, Foldom (Matt Lauria) goes rogue with his own sub-plot. That storyline also ends up being rushed for the sake of upping the stakes at the end of the season and ending on a cliffhanger.
Dear writers (and producers), how about you don’t? In fact, you could have skipped one of the first two plots and gave the other enough time to mature while giving the viewers (aka, me!) enough time to connect with Folsom’s storyline?
Should you watch it?
I grew up on the original CSI and this show, and its spin-offs, is dear to me. I will probably always watch it. But the show will not last as long as its original run if they continue stuffing storylines and confusing us, the viewers.