CSI/Without a Trace 2-hour Crossover--"Who and What/Where and Why"--11/8/07
 

The Big 2 hour Crossover is finally here where Jack Malone and Gil Grissom finally meet.

CSI Synopsis:



Without a Trace Synopsis:

For once I'm glad there was heavy advertising on an upcoming show - especially since I usually zip through all ads - I would've easily missed the "Without a Trace" part.

Looking forward to this one. It'll be interesting to see how the styles mesh because even though both are darker in tone, it seems WAT is a bit different.

Good episodes. I do wonder, though, how this will work on DVD. CSI is distributed on DVD by Paramount and Without a Trace is by Warner Bros. Hopefully they make a deal and let the other show be on the other's season set.

Well, Without a Trace is co-produced by CBS/Paramount TV, so I think that episode could be added as a special feature in the next "Incomplete" CSI DVD set.

It was pretty good, actually. Never watched WAT before, probably will never again.

The only thing I was thinking while watching the second part is how much of a stretch it was that Grissom travelled all the way to New York. His presence just never felt "organic" to the rest of the story.

Yeah, that was odd.

It felt a lot like they forced Grissom being there, he could have done it all over the phone and they could have slpit screened the WAT show.

I just finished watching this tonight and I really liked it. However, I thought it was a little absurb for Grissom to travel all the way to NYC to help Jack and company. I have to agree that it did feel "forced." Actually in a perfect scenario, Grissom could have called Mac Taylor from CSI:NY and have his lab assist with the case.

But, overall there was really good on screen chemistry between LaPaglia and Petersen and I think the crossover worked for the most part.

I was surprised to see Danny Cannon as the director of the CSI episode, since he hasn't directed or produced an episode for a few seasons now. His episodes were always some of the best the show had to offer. Hopefully this means he's back in the game in some capacity.

So do I need to watch both parts of this show? Or can I just watch the CSI part?

You have to watch both parts. There is a cliffhanger at the end of the CSI episode.

Thanks!

I LOL when Jack noticed that Sara was walking Grissom's dog, and that's how things in the workplace start (carrying on with office romances), and how his own situation was still undetermined.

Okay watched this at the weekend.

LaPaglia is such a better actor than anyone else on the 2 shows. That's what stood out for me. Seeing him interact with the CSI team, even Petersen as well.

the overall story was pretty boring.

wow, i actually thought the opposite. Not necessarily that LaPaglia was the worst, but I certainly thought he wasn't that good.

I normally don't watch WOT, but i thought the ensemble cast acting was MUCH better on CSI than WOT, at least in these episodes.

Funny, I'm with BadBoyL, I thought he was a snooze and didn't make a very strong case for me to watch his show on a regular basis. I wasn't too impressed.

is it just me or did Poppy Montgomery not try to hide her Australian accent very well this episode? I haven't watched WOT since probably season 2 and she had a pretty good "American" accent back then.

I don't know about anything else but I thought Poppy was looking a bit rough around the edges. I haven't watched WOT for probably a couple years but I remember her being smoking hot when I was watching the show.

Wait...I just read that's she's expecting a baby in December so that probably has something to do with her looking not quite as hot as I remember.

I was thinking the same thing; her faced seemed very puffy and her complexion was terrible. I hope it really is because she's pregnant, because I find it a shame when once-hot actresses tumble in the looks department.

Overall, I thought the CSI-WAT crossover was well done.

I agree with what other posters have been saying, seems silly for Grissom to travel all the way to New York. He could've done the work he needed to do back in Las Vegas and just phoned it in. That would've defeated the whole "crossover" thing, however.

In the who's a better actor, LaPagila or Petersen, I think they are both about the same (really good), it was one of the supporting cast members on Without a Trace that didn't really seem to "care" if she put on a decent performance. I'm talking about Poppy Montgomery of course.

I watch both shows every week and overall Without a Trace is a more intresting show, IMO. That's because I think the "missing persons" aspect of WAT is much more entertaining than CSIs "case of the week" routine. Plus, on WAT the supporting characters are a little more developed than the CSI supporting character are, and Grissom is pretty much the reason why I tune into CSI every week.

Watched this last night - I have not WAT since the first season and Poppy hit the wall, but looked pregnant.

I'll be honest the 2nd part was sooo boring, I kind of tuned out. The first part the killer was ruthless.

Then in the WAT story line - was this the same guy, it seemed like it was just a nother kidnapper - not a heartless killer.

But - like I said I tuned out so please correct me if I am wrong.

I finally watched this. Was anyone else surprised by what a prick Jack was in the CSI episode? He is never like that on WAT, so at first I thought this might have been a sly artistic choice. I actually thought perhaps that Grissom would come off bad in the WAT episode, so it would be a funny in-joke of how they are perceived outside their own turf. But nope, Grissom hardly made an impression in hour 2. I also thought it was really forced the way he showed up in NY. Couldn't they have at least given him a bug convention or something to attend there?