Bones, season 6 starts today!

Yue

Baseball Star Hitter
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
1,270
Anyone keeping track of it? Yes? No? Not worth your time?
 

IcBlUsCrN

Vanessa's Drinking Buddy
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Posts
1,184
thanks for the heads up, i got into it late and like it for a while but found it to repetitive. its not like i have a lot of choices on what i can watch anyway.
 

Taiso

Remembers The North,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
13,156
I intend to go back and get the first couple of seasons eventually. Looks clever and interesting. And I like David Boreanaz from his days as Angel so I'm interested to see him in a different role.
 

terry.330

Time? Astonishing!
15 Year Member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Posts
10,187
I intend to go back and get the first couple of seasons eventually. Looks clever and interesting. And I like David Boreanaz from his days as Angel so I'm interested to see him in a different role.

I'd suggest sticking with just the first 3 seasons maybe 3 and a half. The show seems to be very popular with women and it really vears off into the sappy relationship thing and looses a lot of of it's charm.
 

Yue

Baseball Star Hitter
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
1,270
I'd suggest sticking with just the first 3 seasons maybe 3 and a half. The show seems to be very popular with women and it really vears off into the sappy relationship thing and looses a lot of of it's charm.

I think of it as character developement actually....

Sometimes the characters have something to do with the case.
 

Taiso

Remembers The North,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
13,156
I'd suggest sticking with just the first 3 seasons maybe 3 and a half. The show seems to be very popular with women and it really vears off into the sappy relationship thing and looses a lot of of it's charm.

I was just having a conversation about this type of thing at, of all places, the local comic store yesterday.

We were talking about the evolution of characters that exist in a static medium, where the story arcs are plot driven and the characters are required to navigate through them to move that plot along. We were talking about comic books, but the logic of the discussion could be applied to TV shows as well.

The concensus: Things like relationships fundamentally alter the characters from what attracted audiences to them to begin with. This is fine if you're dealing with a storyline that is finite and based on character growth, evolution and an ultimate resolution/climax/conclusion. But in a medium where the characters exist as ciphers fo fight crime/solve mysteries on a scheduled basis without any planned endgame to the narrative, it feels like the writers not understanding the precepts of the concept.

That's not to say they can't be good stories, but having, say, Spider-Man make a deal with the devil to save his aunt May is a serious evolution of the character, taking him into dark territory that fundamentally alters the concept of the character.

Likewise, in a show like Bones or Moonlighting (or what have you), when the characters exist to push the narrative of the weekly adventure, it's probably not a good idea to fundamentally alter them until such time as the tv show is approaching its series finale. I understand that there is a strong desire on the part of the writers to see the characters evolve, but it seems like a trap that should be avoided, or rather like a reward to all the people that have followed the show for so long, to wait until the end to give them that particular payoff. It seems to protect the IP more when you do that.

I know there are differing thoughts on this, but that was what I came away with. The stories can still be good and thought provoking without changing static characters too much.
 

terry.330

Time? Astonishing!
15 Year Member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Posts
10,187
I think of it as character developement actually....

Sometimes the characters have something to do with the case.

It was character development up to a point but when they take a time out in the middle of the show so that Booth and Bones or whoever can talk about their feelings for 5 min. it's pandering and it totally ruins the flow of the show.

I don't think it's a bad thing that the show has a lot of female fans, I think it's a bad thing that the writers shamelessly pander to what they think women want to see and the show gets schmaltzy.

They also brought in the most annoying character in TV history by way of the brunette lab assisstant with the wierd jaw who never shuts up.

If you enjoy that and still enjoy the show I won't hold it against you it's just that it's very hard for me to watch it much anymore.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
25,937
I liked the first 2 or 3 seasons okay, as silly as they sometimes got. But as soon as they came back with that season 4 opener in London, the entire series went into the crapper. The relationship drama stuff became ham-fisted, overused and unbelievable -- Melrose fucking Place-style -- and as already pointed out, it killed the mood and the flow of the series.

The series had its ups and downs in quality right from the beginning, but that season 4 premier was absolutely idiotic to the point of being insulting, and the show continued to deteriorate over the next few episodes to the point you couldn't pay me to watch it now. Shame.
 

Yue

Baseball Star Hitter
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
1,270
I liked the first 2 or 3 seasons okay, as silly as they sometimes got. But as soon as they came back with that season 4 opener in London, the entire series went into the crapper. The relationship drama stuff became ham-fisted, overused and unbelievable -- Melrose fucking Place-style -- and as already pointed out, it killed the mood and the flow of the series.

The series had its ups and downs in quality right from the beginning, but that season 4 premier was absolutely idiotic to the point of being insulting, and the show continued to deteriorate over the next few episodes to the point you couldn't pay me to watch it now. Shame.

Not your cup of tea but sure is a lot of other peoples. Season 4 had the most viewers than all the other seasons so far. 5 had almost as much.

Maybe they are getting all us chicks lol. My little sisters couldn't stop watching.

They liked Dexter too but I kind of had to skip some parts since they were too mature for them. I don't have to do that with Bones.
 

Reality Check

World Hero
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Posts
2,312
I just recently got into Bones. I catch the repeats on TNT. I have no idea which season their airing but I'm enjoying it.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
25,937
Not your cup of tea but sure is a lot of other peoples. Season 4 had the most viewers than all the other seasons so far. 5 had almost as much.

Yeah, we call that 'lowest common denominator'. No one ever went broke by catering to stupid people.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
25,937
That's your opinion right there....and I'll try not to look into it this time.

Whatever. Obviously, the individual's mileage may vary. For instance, if someone happens to be a 12 year-old girl, Bones season 4 may seem a lot more poignant. A lot of the things which might annoy or seem hackneyed to someone ages 13 and up might not be troublesome to the 12 year-old. And that's fine for them.
 

Yue

Baseball Star Hitter
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Posts
1,270
Whatever. Obviously, the individual's mileage may vary. For instance, if someone happens to be a 12 year-old girl, Bones season 4 may seem a lot more poignant. A lot of the things which might annoy or seem hackneyed to someone ages 13 and up might not be troublesome to the 12 year-old. And that's fine for them.

Just that the demographic thing said people mostly from 18 to 49 watch it.

Do you prefer more mature audience based things like Dexter or True Blood instead? Or tv just sucks?
 

terry.330

Time? Astonishing!
15 Year Member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Posts
10,187
Just that the demographic thing said people mostly from 18 to 49 watch it.

Do you prefer more mature audience based things like Dexter or True Blood instead? Or tv just sucks?

I know this question wasn't directed at me but...

I prefer Dexter, can take or leave TB but yes TV sucks and always has for the most part.

Seriously go back and watch seasons 1 & 2 of Bones. The Gormagon arc is easily the strongest thing the show has ever had going for it, and even that has some very serious short comings to say the least.

Just because the demographic is wide does not mean that the range has not now come to encompass single women 18-49 who live with at least 3 cats and their gay male friend from work who comes over once a week for Bones night.

The show has taken a bit fat shit on it's self in the same way Eureka has just with better writers and a bigger budget.

Why am I even arguing this? Fucking internet:emb:
 

OrochiEddie

Kobaïa Is De Hündïn
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Posts
19,316
I was just having a conversation about this type of thing at, of all places, the local comic store yesterday.

We were talking about the evolution of characters that exist in a static medium, where the story arcs are plot driven and the characters are required to navigate through them to move that plot along. We were talking about comic books, but the logic of the discussion could be applied to TV shows as well.

The concensus: Things like relationships fundamentally alter the characters from what attracted audiences to them to begin with. This is fine if you're dealing with a storyline that is finite and based on character growth, evolution and an ultimate resolution/climax/conclusion. But in a medium where the characters exist as ciphers fo fight crime/solve mysteries on a scheduled basis without any planned endgame to the narrative, it feels like the writers not understanding the precepts of the concept.

That's not to say they can't be good stories, but having, say, Spider-Man make a deal with the devil to save his aunt May is a serious evolution of the character, taking him into dark territory that fundamentally alters the concept of the character.

Likewise, in a show like Bones or Moonlighting (or what have you), when the characters exist to push the narrative of the weekly adventure, it's probably not a good idea to fundamentally alter them until such time as the tv show is approaching its series finale. I understand that there is a strong desire on the part of the writers to see the characters evolve, but it seems like a trap that should be avoided, or rather like a reward to all the people that have followed the show for so long, to wait until the end to give them that particular payoff. It seems to protect the IP more when you do that.

I know there are differing thoughts on this, but that was what I came away with. The stories can still be good and thought provoking without changing static characters too much.

I could agree with this up to the point where I feel it limits the characters to not let them grow. If characters in a never ending narrative are not allowed to become something greater all that is creative is the creation of crazier and more difficult scenarios for them to escape from.

Wolverine is a perfect example of a character that is so stuck in this rut that they have to put in everything from the Civil War to crime Noirs to make things original.

This is also what pisses me off about the show "How I met Your Mother". It is modestly entertaining at best, but I really enjoy Neal Patrick Harris. However, this IS a defined ending point, when Ted (the main character) meets the kid's (who he is telling the story to) mother. With that in mind Ted CAN NOT evolve in any way. He is permanently stuck in limbo while ever other character can and has grown and changed. If you compare Ted from the first season to season 5 Ted there is no difference.

This is also why I dislike these kinds of "infinite" shows and one of the few aspects I enjoy about anime and manga. They more often than not stories with a planned out story and the characters can grow and change because the goal is defined at about 26 episodes.

This is also what killed House
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
25,937
Bones series bible, seasons 4-present:

000eb687_medium.jpeg
 

Neo Alec

King of Spammers
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2000
Posts
10,328
I didn't know anyone else even watched this. My TV-watching standards are not high.
 

ratson

Hyperactive Stoner
15 Year Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Posts
7,854
The final episode about Gormogon was such a lame episode that I never bothered to watch bones again, talking about an anticlimax, man did they fuck up on that one. I am almost certain that I could've done a better job.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
25,937
The final episode about Gormogon was such a lame episode that I never bothered to watch bones again,

You may have not liked that, but believe it or not, it got 1000 times worse with the very next episode. I hung on for a few episodes after that, but eventually had to drop off for the sake of my remaining self respect.
 

OrochiEddie

Kobaïa Is De Hündïn
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Posts
19,316
The final episode about Gormogon was such a lame episode that I never bothered to watch bones again, talking about an anticlimax, man did they fuck up on that one. I am almost certain that I could've done a better job.

I'd love to see you write a Bone's episode...or a House episode. Hell, let's just see Gideon on TV for 30 minutes I know that would be better than 90% of tv.
 
Top