|
Bones
May 13, 2011 10:07:51 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 13, 2011 10:07:51 GMT -5
This is much more like it. As I've said before, Bones doesn't really do a great job with heavy arc stuff (ie, the Gormagon mess--I'm stilling trying to figure out who Eric Milligan pissed off to get that storyline), but this sniper storyline, on the second part of the season, a few episodes here and there and building it in the background while other stuff was going on? Much much better.
And the death of Vincent was pretty well handled; I even bought Bones confusion about who he was speaking to while he died.
|
|
|
Bones
May 13, 2011 12:11:05 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 13, 2011 12:11:05 GMT -5
This is much more like it. As I've said before, Bones doesn't really do a great job with heavy arc stuff (ie, the Gormagon mess--I'm stilling trying to figure out who Eric Milligan pissed off to get that storyline), but this sniper storyline, on the second part of the season, a few episodes here and there and building it in the background while other stuff was going on? Much much better. And the death of Vincent was pretty well handled; I even bought Bones confusion about who he was speaking to while he died. The glaring omission in that ep, imo, was right after Vincent was murdered, everyone just heading out on their way with no mention of security -- other than Bones staying at Booth's apt. (Wouldn't that almost be the most dangerous possible place?). I guess if you assume he was only after Booth, not his associates, and the death of Vincent was a mistake then maybe there wasn't danger. Still....
|
|
|
Bones
May 13, 2011 13:02:30 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 13, 2011 13:02:30 GMT -5
This is much more like it. As I've said before, Bones doesn't really do a great job with heavy arc stuff (ie, the Gormagon mess--I'm stilling trying to figure out who Eric Milligan pissed off to get that storyline), but this sniper storyline, on the second part of the season, a few episodes here and there and building it in the background while other stuff was going on? Much much better. And the death of Vincent was pretty well handled; I even bought Bones confusion about who he was speaking to while he died. The glaring omission in that ep, imo, was right after Vincent was murdered, everyone just heading out on their way with no mention of security -- other than Bones staying at Booth's apt. (Wouldn't that almost be the most dangerous possible place?). I guess if you assume he was only after Booth, not his associates, and the death of Vincent was a mistake then maybe there wasn't danger. Still.... Absolutely...and, honestly, it wouldn't be Bones without the glaring potholes. Maybe Brodsky assumed that he got Booth with that shot, but, again, not really addressed. I was thinking that Sweets was going to be the one who was shot, particularly with his remark about how he'd wished Booth had shot Brodsky when he had the chance. He's been kind of sidelined this season, although I suppose if they really are going to go there with Booth and Brennan, he might be more central next season. I guess I don't expect as much from this series; it's a diversion, but it doesn't "own" me in the same way other shows have.
|
|
|
Bones
May 17, 2011 14:26:42 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 17, 2011 14:26:42 GMT -5
HA! I knew it!
That random episode of Bones, with the 3 people we'd never see before, and the guy was a genius at finding things? Was EXACTLY what I thought it was: a back-end pilot for a Bones spin-off called "The Finder."
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2011 10:13:12 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 20, 2011 10:13:12 GMT -5
Well, that was...unexpected.
I guess we're supposed to assume that it happened Bones came to Booth for comfort after Vincent was shot...
|
|
|
Bones
May 26, 2011 18:55:02 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 26, 2011 18:55:02 GMT -5
Well, that was...unexpected. I guess we're supposed to assume that it happened Bones came to Booth for comfort after Vincent was shot... We'll get it in flashback. The writers aren't so evil as to have the sex completely off-screen after six years. That said...really? Pregnant? WTF? My issue with Bones lately is minor - it's that Booth is too much a Mary Sue of late. Nobody had any doubt in their mind how he'd react to the pregnancy announcement. He's...Booth. He's a good guy. Almost without exception. And the best sniper in the world. Takes away a bit of the tension inherent in such plot twists.
|
|
|
Bones
May 26, 2011 19:07:56 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 26, 2011 19:07:56 GMT -5
Well, that was...unexpected. I guess we're supposed to assume that it happened Bones came to Booth for comfort after Vincent was shot... We'll get it in flashback. The writers aren't so evil as to have the sex completely off-screen after six years. That said...really? Pregnant? WTF? My issue with Bones lately is minor - it's that Booth is too much a Mary Sue of late. Nobody had any doubt in their mind how he'd react to the pregnancy announcement. He's...Booth. He's a good guy. Almost without exception. And the best sniper in the world. Takes away a bit of the tension inherent in such plot twists. I'm thinking that the WTF pregnancy is probably the result of Emily D.'s real life pregnancy. But, eetah to everything you just said. Not that I mind, particularly; if I need to see bastardly behavior I can just turn on the news.
|
|
|
Bones
Sept 20, 2011 10:26:55 GMT -5
Post by Karen on Sept 20, 2011 10:26:55 GMT -5
Ok - I know I haven't been watching every single episode, but what happened to Bone's baby? Or was that reveal something that is supposed to happen in the future?
|
|
|
Bones
Sept 20, 2011 11:47:40 GMT -5
Post by Sue on Sept 20, 2011 11:47:40 GMT -5
Ok - I know I haven't been watching every single episode, but what happened to Bone's baby? Or was that reveal something that is supposed to happen in the future? The last thing she said in the season finale was telling Booth she was pregnant. So nothing has happened so far. Not sure where in the pregnancy (post-pregnancy?) the new season will pick up.
|
|
|
Bones
May 15, 2012 17:22:58 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 15, 2012 17:22:58 GMT -5
The writing on Bones has never been spectacular. The characters don't stay in character terribly well. And the arch-villains are so over the top "powerful" until brought down by some small thing.
This was just nonsensical. That a guy could pull all that off. But that Booth would leave his house unprotected and even walk away from Bones and baby to get the car. Stupid.
And running away without even telling Booth. This is not going to be good for their relationship.
Yes, the finale was a shocker. But in that bad Bones way. Not sure why I keep watching.
I think my favorite ep was when Booth had his coma dream. I'd rather watch that alternate universe.
|
|
|
Bones
May 15, 2012 18:39:33 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 15, 2012 18:39:33 GMT -5
The writing on Bones has never been spectacular. The characters don't stay in character terribly well. And the arch-villains are so over the top "powerful" until brought down by some small thing. This was just nonsensical. That a guy could pull all that off. But that Booth would leave his house unprotected and even walk away from Bones and baby to get the car. Stupid. And running away without even telling Booth. This is not going to be good for their relationship. Yes, the finale was a shocker. But in that bad Bones way. Not sure why I keep watching. I think my favorite ep was when Booth had his coma dream. I'd rather watch that alternate universe. Yeah, it's total popcorn, suspend the brain sort of stuff. Still miles better than the set-up for the Zach/Gormagon thing, though. And the Pelant character? Well, I actually thought it was another actor, both for his looks and because his "abilities" and the thoroughness of his framing of Bones? Is very very close to a recent storyline on another series.
|
|
|
Bones
May 15, 2012 19:26:09 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 15, 2012 19:26:09 GMT -5
The writing on Bones has never been spectacular. The characters don't stay in character terribly well. And the arch-villains are so over the top "powerful" until brought down by some small thing. This was just nonsensical. That a guy could pull all that off. But that Booth would leave his house unprotected and even walk away from Bones and baby to get the car. Stupid. And running away without even telling Booth. This is not going to be good for their relationship. Yes, the finale was a shocker. But in that bad Bones way. Not sure why I keep watching. I think my favorite ep was when Booth had his coma dream. I'd rather watch that alternate universe. Yeah, it's total popcorn, suspend the brain sort of stuff. Still miles better than the set-up for the Zach/Gormagon thing, though. And the Pelant character? Well, I actually thought it was another actor, both for his looks and because his "abilities" and the thoroughness of his framing of Bones? Is very very close to a recent storyline on another series. Although, you know: Reed Diamond! Wondering if with Angie and Hodgins hooked up and Bones and Booth whether Cam and Reed will hook up (he's the FBI agent on the case, she's the only Jeffersonian still on it). I'm trying to think of a show that really needed to go longer than 5 years. Law and Order? But that's more like reading a newspaper or non-fiction. Even book series. 3, 4, 5, maybe 6. A dozen is the absolute max I'd say. Prove me wrong Harry Dresden!
|
|
|
Bones
May 15, 2012 20:09:43 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 15, 2012 20:09:43 GMT -5
Yeah, it's total popcorn, suspend the brain sort of stuff. Still miles better than the set-up for the Zach/Gormagon thing, though. And the Pelant character? Well, I actually thought it was another actor, both for his looks and because his "abilities" and the thoroughness of his framing of Bones? Is very very close to a recent storyline on another series. Although, you know: Reed Diamond! Wondering if with Angie and Hodgins hooked up and Bones and Booth whether Cam and Reed will hook up (he's the FBI agent on the case, she's the only Jeffersonian still on it). I'm trying to think of a show that really needed to go longer than 5 years. Law and Order? But that's more like reading a newspaper or non-fiction. Even book series. 3, 4, 5, maybe 6. A dozen is the absolute max I'd say. Prove me wrong Harry Dresden! Reed Diamond SO needs more work. I've liked him since Homicide: Life on the Street. As for shows/book series...I suppose there is an argument to be made that each should be precisely as long as needed to tell the story you want to tell, which would obviously differ for each one. That being said, absolutely certain things go on for far too long, and you can tell when they start to repeat themselves, to dress up old storylines in new clothes. Sometimes it is for the best when there is a pre-set limit. Like Harry Potter. Rowling may have, in the course of writing, come up with plots for more HP books, but the fact that she set herself the limit of one for each year of school was a good constraint on not letting the story draw out to the point of exhaustion. Buffy was best at 7 years, because of its positioning as a bildungsroman, the endpoint would be Buffy's acceptance of her role as both Slayer and woman, bringing her through the high school and college years into a more fully franchised adulthood, which is where a coming-of-age story should terminate. Things like Firefly or Angel would have been harder to set an endpoint on, because they were set in a different type of story. Plus, *sob* we'll never really know. With shows like Bones (or House, which I think is ending next week), it's a lot harder to tell when to quit. Neither of them are purely one thing or another (procedural, relationship drama, medical show). They could, conceivably, go on forever. Sitcoms, too, fall into that. So it ends up, to me, being more determined by ratings/ad rates/lack of anything to replace it rather than by the dictates of good storytelling.
|
|
|
Bones
May 15, 2012 20:24:56 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 15, 2012 20:24:56 GMT -5
Although, you know: Reed Diamond! Wondering if with Angie and Hodgins hooked up and Bones and Booth whether Cam and Reed will hook up (he's the FBI agent on the case, she's the only Jeffersonian still on it). I'm trying to think of a show that really needed to go longer than 5 years. Law and Order? But that's more like reading a newspaper or non-fiction. Even book series. 3, 4, 5, maybe 6. A dozen is the absolute max I'd say. Prove me wrong Harry Dresden! Reed Diamond SO needs more work. I've liked him since Homicide: Life on the Street. As for shows/book series...I suppose there is an argument to be made that each should be precisely as long as needed to tell the story you want to tell, which would obviously differ for each one. That being said, absolutely certain things go on for far too long, and you can tell when they start to repeat themselves, to dress up old storylines in new clothes. Sometimes it is for the best when there is a pre-set limit. Like Harry Potter. Rowling may have, in the course of writing, come up with plots for more HP books, but the fact that she set herself the limit of one for each year of school was a good constraint on not letting the story draw out to the point of exhaustion. Buffy was best at 7 years, because of its positioning as a bildungsroman, the endpoint would be Buffy's acceptance of her role as both Slayer and woman, bringing her through the high school and college years into a more fully franchised adulthood, which is where a coming-of-age story should terminate. Things like Firefly or Angel would have been harder to set an endpoint on, because they were set in a different type of story. Plus, *sob* we'll never really know. With shows like Bones (or House, which I think is ending next week), it's a lot harder to tell when to quit. Neither of them are purely one thing or another (procedural, relationship drama, medical show). They could, conceivably, go on forever. Sitcoms, too, fall into that. So it ends up, to me, being more determined by ratings/ad rates/lack of anything to replace it rather than by the dictates of good storytelling. indicators of when a show should end: 1. When is just gets away from the creator (like Heroes -- great concept, good start, show-runner had no clear boundaries and it went berserk. 2. When the show runner loses interest because he is on to other stuff and the stories and characters suffer because the vision has been lost. 3. When the stories become either boring or repetitious or too too outlandish. 4. Also, many shows are too dependent on the original casts. Joss was a genius (in many many ways but this is another) at growing the characters but also introducing new/additional characters as needed.
|
|
|
Bones
May 15, 2012 20:40:18 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 15, 2012 20:40:18 GMT -5
Reed Diamond SO needs more work. I've liked him since Homicide: Life on the Street. As for shows/book series...I suppose there is an argument to be made that each should be precisely as long as needed to tell the story you want to tell, which would obviously differ for each one. That being said, absolutely certain things go on for far too long, and you can tell when they start to repeat themselves, to dress up old storylines in new clothes. Sometimes it is for the best when there is a pre-set limit. Like Harry Potter. Rowling may have, in the course of writing, come up with plots for more HP books, but the fact that she set herself the limit of one for each year of school was a good constraint on not letting the story draw out to the point of exhaustion. Buffy was best at 7 years, because of its positioning as a bildungsroman, the endpoint would be Buffy's acceptance of her role as both Slayer and woman, bringing her through the high school and college years into a more fully franchised adulthood, which is where a coming-of-age story should terminate. Things like Firefly or Angel would have been harder to set an endpoint on, because they were set in a different type of story. Plus, *sob* we'll never really know. With shows like Bones (or House, which I think is ending next week), it's a lot harder to tell when to quit. Neither of them are purely one thing or another (procedural, relationship drama, medical show). They could, conceivably, go on forever. Sitcoms, too, fall into that. So it ends up, to me, being more determined by ratings/ad rates/lack of anything to replace it rather than by the dictates of good storytelling. indicators of when a show should end: 1. When is just gets away from the creator (like Heroes -- great concept, good start, show-runner had no clear boundaries and it went berserk. 2. When the show runner loses interest because he is on to other stuff and the stories and characters suffer because the vision has been lost. 3. When the stories become either boring or repetitious or too too outlandish. 4. Also, many shows are too dependent on the original casts. Joss was a genius (in many many ways but this is another) at growing the characters but also introducing new/additional characters as needed. Oh, excellent enumeration. I would just add one more: 5. When any show (comedy, drama etc) starts to take itself too seriously.
|
|