CSI: Cyber

I was really looking forward to this show! I used to watch CSI and CSI:Miami. I stopped watching at some point, but always loved the shows and love forensic series in general. CSI: Cyber was combining two of my favorite genres/subjects.

The acting really was not very good at all. Most of the acting was so wooden and monotone...especially Patricia Arquette's. Even Peter MacNicol, who I loved in Numb3rs was not great. The only characters with personality and that I actually enjoyed were the 3 hacker characters (Charley Koontz, Hayley Kiyoko, and Shad Moss).

I didn't mind the dumbing down of the tech stuff like some of the other reviews. You have to be able to appeal to a wider audience than the geeks out there.

I really hope this gets better. I'll probably give it 2 more episodes.

I write this in the assumption that someone connected with this series reads user reviews to get an idea of how their show is perceived.

One of the common problems with the CSI series (and, to be fair, many other shows) has always been that someone, somewhere feels that the audience has never seen (or heard) a computer work before, and so every action has to come with a "beep-boop-beep" sound effect. If I had to work with those computers all day, I would long ago have placed an empty plug in the headphone port, just to shut the bloody thing up! Now we have a show that should, from its title and premise, be a little more current about computers. But no, all of the scene cuts seem to be glitchy video transmissions, with static breaks and annoying pixellations. If I was watching this show as a streaming video, I would have thought my ISP needed a call to clear up my crappy connection, but no, I was watching on cable, and this was someone's poor idea of how to make the show look "Kewl". Well, this effect is about as outdated as the spelling of "Kewl".

Please, this is a show being sent to a 21st century audience, pretty well all of whom have computers and know how they look and sound. Give us some credit, and more realistic computers.

So far...episode 1 = not good, not good at all - bad acting all round, even from Patricia Arquette which really surprised me, below par script/plot, just so run of the mill not what you expect from CSI...very disappointed by it's lack of originality or sophistication. Surely they don't think this is what the average viewer wants nowadays, a paint by numbers plot with absolutely no challenge to the grey matter? So tired of these shows that are written for people with low to no intellect there are only a handful of shows still airing that I can say do that and this certainly is not one of them. (Why do they take off air the really good shows (sci-fi especially and replace it with this mindless drivel), well that is my late night rant, fueled by yet another disappointment in what looked to be a promising show over and done with.

I am so disappointed in the production of CSI cyber. The constantly twitching camera angles are distracting. The slurred and mumbled speech make it hard to follow the plot. Someone confused suspense with technique. It is not working. Please, someone fix this so we can get into this spin off. The imitators of the original series need to watch the original CSI series again to correct technique.

The acting is good. Character selection and formula work. Staging O.K. Constant, and I do mean constant, use of computer parts to mark scene changes needs to be more thought out. Good T.V in CSI teaches something about the subject matter. All the hyped vocabulary, and explanation of it by characters, is not complete enough or even if it is, is not possible to follow because of all the camera angles and mumbling. So incredibly disappointed in production.

What can I say?!

Just: awful, awful, awful.

I cannot believe that - having cancelled all 3 of the other 'CSI' programmes - the producers then give us yet another programme of the exact same style!

It has been churned out with techniques identical to the last few series of 'CSI's 1 to 3. This sadly resulted in a first episode with the following flaws:

~ meandering plot ~ dull story ~ inconsequential events ~ confused schematic ~ none of the wit or humour hoped for ~ zero warmth from the protagonists ~ no depth or scope i.e superficial ~ nil characterisation or back stories for the players (until at the very end, when it was far too late to enthral me in any way!)

I was hoping to see another programme of the quality of the first few series of the original 'CSI' - when "Grissom" et al really grabbed my interest, and the plots were feasible and properly fleshed out. Instead, this CSI-4 simply - and unbelievably - reproduced the very death throes of 'CSI' & the other 2 'CSI' series.

Yet another US show with a fatal case of style over substance. Gloss does NOT equate to quality.

I had SO looked forward to this new series. So I was HORRIFIED to see such a lazy production being rolled out.

The episode was proving abysmal even after the first 5 minutes, and dropped ever lower in my estimation the further the drama went on.

I would have hoped to be able to watch the second episode, in order to give the whole series a critique - i.e. after perusal of more than just one storyline. But, having seen the exact same style of programme in the last days of 'CSI's 1 to 3, there is clearly NO hope that CSI-4 will change. So I am signing off the series as of now. And have in fact already deleted the 10+ episodes that we had so far recorded... 1 hour is enough of my life wasted! ,-) After all, if the 'CSI' studio haven't learnt by now, then from this first episode they have proved that they never will.

Sadly, I can give this programme no more than 1 out of 10, as the production studio should have known better.

No-one can blame the actors, so please, please - Patricia Arquette, Peter MacNicol, et al - MOVE ON to something worth your skills.

I just HAD to get my opinion down. A form of catharsis, no doubt!! ,-)

One last point: the best thing about this programme? In fact, the ONLY good thing? Is ANOTHER superb theme song from the catalogue of 'The Who'. So I am off to YouTube to listen again to the great 'I Can See For Miles'. Now that WILL be 4 minutes well spent!