It pains me. CSI and Without a Trace are by far my favorite non-adult-cartoon non-Sopranos shows on TV. Because they're character driven, down to earth, and believeable.

CSI has a completely unrealistic season finale so they could flaunt Quentin Tarantino, and Without a Trace..well, I'm not going to spoil it for anyone who taped it or anything, but the last season is super-cheesy and sensationalistic, and the fruition of the sudden cliffhanger could make me lose all the respect the show earned for itself over the first three seasons.

I don't watch Navy NCIS or CSI: Miami...but the former is advertising their season finale with a cheesy 'One character WILL DIE' gimmick, the latter did so last season, and is advertising with a bunch of explosions and cheesy interchanges.

CSI and WoT are some of the few shows on network TV with such good writing that they don't NEED sensationalism to draw ratings. Crap like this will probably increase ratings short term and ruin them long term.

Good detective shows: R.I.P. You will be missed.

I found the finale of CSI to be gripping. It was a little more Quentin than CSI, but I found it intense and really discomforting. It was sensationalistic, to be sure, and they played up the Tarantino angle, but it's sweeps.

I'm not sure that the storyline was any more unrealistic than previous episodes or even seasons...CSI's debut featured a member of the team being killed! I've got a good friend who is a CSI, and he RARELY ever sees the kinds of cases that they see on a regular basis. And few crime labs have the resources that they seem to have available to them on that show.

It's a suspension of disbelief thing for me with shows like this.

Well, the CSI episode was less insidious...it was good television, just a bad precedent for the show. If it weren't CSI I would have liked it.

I never claimed it was totally realistic. They have more resources than most crime labs to make the plots possible, and the distribution of crimes isn't accurate, but let's put it this way.

Here's the average CSI crime. A husband walks in on his wife cheating, kills the man, and they engage in some creative coverup. Now, this might not happen as often as less cinematic crimes, but I can imagine people in real life doing this.

Here's the average Law and Order: SVU crime. Some super-insane super-evil person who believes he is above the human race rapes women who look like his dead wife and kills them to swallow their souls to enhance his own power so he can transcend to a higher plane.

Which one is easier to suspend disbelief for?

CSI was very plausible in the first couple seasons, but has become less and less plausible.

I'm not saying CSI is realistic, I'm saying it's *plausible*. And it's easier to get into because...well, characters aren't so full of themselves as the CSI: Miami lead character is, for one. And the suspects and victims are easier to identify with because they act like you can imagine real people acting in that situation.

To be honest, while I watch a fair amount of TV, I've never really gotten into detective shows. I might have if there had been one in particular that interested me, but just the fact that there are so many turns me off a bit. It just seems to be overdone.

The only detective-like show that I watch is on UPN called Veronica Mars. It's not too widely known but it is excellent.

Of the detective shows you mention, I only watch CSI and SVU with any degree of regularity. I like the latter mainly for the acting and the characters (although they've made Ice-T and Belzer into cartoons recently) and the former for the cool effects and weird science. I think the finale of CSI was certainly overblown, but I wasn't surprised or bothered by it so much as I just chalked it up to trying to up the ante for the most popular show on TV.

Honestly, given the amount of super-sick sex crimes, I don't find many of the SVU cases that outrageous. Many of the crimes aren't sex crimes, per se, but crimes against children. I find both shows equally plausible, and both of them generally entertain me. They are two of only a handful of shows that my wife and I watch together regularly each week.

I think most shows lose plausibility as they age. Take ER. It was a very good, medically-minded, drama for several years. But the storylines became thinner (and the focus shifted from the medicine to the personal dramas) and even repetitive. And it strikes me as really as plausibility problem that EVERY PERSON who has ever worked in Cook County General Hospital has been stabbed, shot, mugged, or assaulted in some way shape or form.

CSI is over the top anyway. Where are you getting this down to earth stuff from?

The Tarentino finale were the best episodes in the shows history.

For me to get into detective shows, the two most important things are plausible crimes, and an engaging cast.

The Tarantino episode was a great episode, but it bothered me that it didn't have a plausible crime.

Out of the CSIs, I think Vegas and New York have plausible crimes (In general), but only Vegas has an engaging cast.

I agree with Elle's post from over a year ago that Veronica Mars is the best detective show on TV. Way better than the standard procedural crime drama.