Jorja Fox leaving CSI Vegas, Yay, Yay, and Thrice Yay

'CSI' regular Jorja Fox will leave the hit drama after seven years. The 39-year-old actress first introduced the character of forensics expert Sara Sidle in 2000.

She is quitting the show in November after failing to agree terms on a new deal.

In an upcoming TV Guide interview, Jorja reveals, "A couple of years ago, I decided not to take the raise that was offered me, (which) would have added a year to my contract."

The actress admits she still feels frustrated and hurt after CSI producers fired her and co-star George Eads following a salary dispute in 2004.

She adds, "I wasn't sure I wanted to give anybody any extra time. And the raise was terrible, to be frank. An extra year for that amount of money? No, thank you."

But the actress admits she'll miss her onscreen love interest, William Petersen: "He's the most incredible scene partner I've ever had and he's a great friend. I couldn't have scored any higher than getting William Petersen to be my boyfriend on TV."


Never liked Sara Sidle.

Spoiler ! Spoiler !! :fear:

<< Smacks Jane`s bare legs >> :lol:

Sorry Jane, I`m invoking executive Mod powers and doing a leetle edit. ;)

` Decided not to take the raise` ? :unsure:

I thought she got fired for not showing up one time. :lol:

The easiest way around these is to just title the thread "Cast Spoilers".

Didn't spoil me, already knew, and to be honest, good riddance, don't like her or the character much anyway.

Sort of.

She and George Eads (Nick Stokes) were nearly out on their collective ear after not signing and returning a particular form.

When they realised that they'd be canned, they signed pretty quickly.

Obviously this is another case of Too Big for Boots. :rolleyes:

i guess it was time for las vegas to lose a team member (miami did it, new york did it) but not really gonna miss her, she was never able to level up with catherine and as much there was a bit of spark with grissom last season, that plot was never really interesting. just wonder if they gonna bring someone else :unsure:

I'll miss her. I thought she had good chemistry with Peterson (despite their age differences). I'm glad she was forthright about her dissatisfaction and allowed little room for lurid speculation (altho, you know that certain types will still speculate about alien's taking over her mind.)

Question is: will she die a glorious death? Or just fade away?

Evidently, a couple years ago -- and after the firing -- she signed a contract that has just now lapsed instead of signing a longer term contract which offered a minor raise. She must have started this season while still in negotiations for an extension -- and she has just now turned it down.

As a supporting player in an emsemble piece, she really doesn't have much negotiating power. And like Mandy, can be easily replaced (except in the minds of devoted fans).

Good - she's gone.

Now if can George Eads follow her example, then I might be tempted to watch the series again....

Plus (Miami Spoilers)


miami did it

Funny you should say that, since he was in last nights episode :)

re: miami spoiler

:blink: i suppose you mean in a flashback :unsure:

Nope - no flashback :)

:o had to go check :rolleyes: interesting :)

Apparently, Jorja is on $100,000 per episode, and Marg H. is on +$300,000 per episode.

That's quite a difference, but even so at 22 episodes per season that's over 2 million dollars a year.

She may find life won't be so comfortable once she leaves.

Jorja can move in with me if things get too tough. :innocent:

I thought the pretty young forensics rookie was brought in as a replacement for Jorja (or to threaten her with one should the negotiations turn difficult). But according to BuddyTV.com (only slightly spoilery) she was intended as an addition.

Jorja's loss might give this lovely Canadian actress a bigger role than planned.

Like so many of the attractive Canadian actresses around, she comes from Vancouver, British Columbia -- just up the interstate from here. Now I wish that I had visited the city more when I was younger.

Jessica's character's name is "Veronica Lake" (how many have heard of Veronica Lake -- hands?). She'll be nicknamed "Ronnie".

From what I understand things will be left open for her character to return so it doesn't look as if she's going to be killed off.

<< Raises hand >> :lol:

She was in I married a Witch, I think. :)

Sarah's the winner. :thumbsup:

That's the gist of the rumors. Other rumors said she would've been killed off. But it appears to me that developments in the recent episodes make it possible for Jorja to appear occasionally without disturbing the chain of events.

Without going into details, there appear to be two ways Sara's storyline could go. I'm hoping for one -- dreading the more formulaic other.

Wheeee ! :lol:

:rolleyes:

Indeed. :rolleyes:

I rank this right up there with MI5 chief says Spooks not realistic. :lol:

Click. ;)

It's the usual battle between realism and drama -- in this case, dramatic pacing. For instance, the forensic people probably aren't involved in interviewing suspects. And fingerprint and DNA results don't come back fast.

I wonder, however, if Dr Willis has actually seen the show or is just careless (I hope she's more careful about her policework).

1) The CSIs in particular do emphasize the team approach with specialists doing their part. There maybe fewer than in real-life, but I don't recall an episode where it was a 1-person team.

2) I doubt any viewer thinks that a crime is solved in an hour. I think she or the journalist meant to say that investigations take much longer than the few days as suggested by the show.

3) While she is right that forensics doesn't necessarily provide the final answer, the effectiveness of the science shouldn't be discounted. Fingerprinting and DNA have had a profound effect on crime solving.

4) While the CSIs have focused on stories where their central characters find the key piece, they have more than once finished a story in the gray areas.

The show's value is taking subject matter without dramatic possibilities and making it so dramatic as to be hugely successful. They oversell. They cut corners. And there are many viewers who can be mislead by this.

But if we're complaining about being misleading, maybe Dr Willis should read the list above.

Re: the show as a good training for criminals. I've thought that from the beginning. What keeps me sleeping at nights is that [a] criminals often don't have the time nor the wit to clean any evidence away and [b] even the trained ones may not get everything, [c] etc.

aren't horatio and ryan wolfe a cop? not sure about the others, apart catherine, we never really learn about their background :unsure:

That's true. Those who are actual police detectives, such as the Miami CSI (and I think the NY CSI), do interview, etc. But, its their police status that allows that. In LV, the CSI are not cops -- a real-life LV CSI said in a TV interview he has never been in on a interview.

I'd say this doctor got her few minutes of fame wouldn't you? Whens the last time someone on CSI solved a case all by themselves? We watch a lot of Court TV late at night here and they have those forensic shows on most nights and I'd say they follow a lot of the same procedures that they do on CSI or vice versa so I don't know what she's complaining about.

i think brass (homicide iirc :unsure: ) usually is in the room (or next door) during the interview

_____________

i suppose her problem was the case are solved a bit too quickly for her taste (but would we follow a serie if they were investigating a single murder for 22 episodes? oh look a clue, let follow it for 42 mn to bring us a little more near the bad guy :ermm: :rolleyes: )

That's been done before - Murder One

:o :lol: was it any good? :unsure:

Yes - very.

I enjoyed the first season of Murder One with Daniel Benzali - didn`t bother with the second season when they switched to thingy* from WAT , it seemed too much like a remake to me. :unsure:

* Anthongy LaPaglia. ;)

I've seen scenes where neither Brass or any other detective is in the room.

She must have been really distressed to see World War II started and completed in a 2-hour movie. ;)

But, that's the point. Dramatic pacing. What do we take out? What do we leave in? For the sake of a compelling drama.

What she should have said -- and what I've thought all along -- is that the shows should give us an accurate sense of how long the investigation takes. But then, :ponder: think of the problems. The actual span of time would be weeks, months or years. The actors would need to age appropriately. The background would have to age so that one begun now, in 2007, would have be ended in the future, say 2009.

The compromise due to the needs of drama is typical. The naive expectations generated in SOME of the viewers is typical. The concerned reaction by experts is typical. My issue with Dr Willis's complaint is the sloppiness of it.

Which is something they try to reflect in Law & Order by showing the various dates onscreen for various scenes.

Funny thing about those dates -- I never pay much attention to them -- relying instead on the dialog and situation to inform me. And I think they're very successful at that.

Even when ignoring those dates, the few L&O episodes I've seen give a sense of the passing of time in a way that CSI fails too.

there have been a few case in CSI that needed longer that just one episode before being close (the pratt case for NY, the miniature killer for vegas) and at least once mac told someone (aiden? :unsure: ) that he had not closed investigations that were on his desk because they needed more time/proof/interviews