Patman

Nice Helfrek-Angel reunion in the episode (though I don't think they ever shared a scene together back then).

Those young girls pageants are a bit disturbing at times. "Little Miss Sunshine" really nailed such a vibe. This episode was more about pushing through the flirting between Hodgy and Angela, and setting up more between Seely and Bones, while keeping Cam in the booty call area code.

cmleidi

The writers need to work on the mysteries. They are quite predictable, and this one was blatantly obvious. With that said, I really care about the characters, and the interactions are very well written. I'd rather do away with the mysteries and just concentrate on the personal interactions.

Jay G.

You thought it was "blatantly obvious" that a fellow contestant had accidentally pushed her too hard after being taunted, causing the girl to fall and crack her neck on a parking block? I thought the show had done well stringing along a series of red herrings: the roofer father and the tar on the victim, the video of the kid and mom fighting, the creepy kid with the "steel-toe" boots, the medal belonging to the competitor's mom. You may have guessed that the killer had been a fellow contestant, but the show didn't make that obvious at all for the majority of the episode.

I've never, ever, ever heard of a show dropping its main premise to focus on the characters. In a way it seems silly, since if you want a show without mysteries and just character interaction, those shows already exist.

cmleidi

Yes, they did. It was obvious from the beginning that it was a fellow contestant. I may not have known the precise details of the death, but I knew the identity of the killer. In this case, I guessed at the manner of death, but I didn't know about the disposal of the body. IF the only suspense is the "how," that holds little interest for me.

This show is just like Moonlighting, and there were episodes where they didn't investigate anything. The strongest scenes on Bones are the ones involving the personal relationships. I'm not suggesting they do away with the mysteries entirely, but it would be nice to have the occasional episode where the mystery angle is shelved.

Jay G.

What facts at the beginning of the episode made it "obvious" that it was a fellow contestant?

That's a tenuous statement at best. The only real similarities are that both shows deal with "mysteries," and that the two leads have romantic tension, which are hardly unique features.

Moonlighting messed with its format almost as a rule though. Several episodes of Moonlighting even broke the fourth wall, which is something that's never likely to happen on Bones.

They got close to that last season with "The Girl in the Fridge," where the mystery was for the most part solved in the first 15 minutes. The mystery in the Christmas episode last year was also a fairly minor part of the story. Personally, I think I'd be fine with a few mystery-less episodes, I just doubt that will happen. The most we're likely to get is some episodes where the mystery is on the sidelines for most of the ep.

cmleidi

It was the fact that the victim was a pageant contestant. I just knew that it would be a fellow contestant. It was obvious to me and I'm someone who rarely picks out the murderer in MURDER, SHE WROTE.


Yes, the tone of Moonlighting was much more different, but they are still similar shows in the way the show is structured, the dependence of the sexual chemistry of the characters, the comic relief of the supporting characters, etc. Bones feels closer to Moonighting than C.S.I.


There are so many procedurals that Bones is different from the pack because of the chemistry between all of the character. The writing for each character is very strong, and it's rare when the show is basically a two person show. They even did a great job in writing Jessica Capshaw's character. She was not the typical bitch ex-lover; she had depth and I cared about her. That's probably why I see this is as more in the Moonlighting vein because the character based writing is so superb.

Jay G.

So basically you based it on no evidence. While I congratulate you on your shot-in-the-dark guess panning out, I don't see how this is a fault in the writing. They had to make the culprit someone and if they had picked any of the other possible suspects the episode sifted through, then some other audience member's shot-in-the-dark guess would've panned out.

Those aren't unique characteristics. Lots of shows use a mystery structure, lots of shows have sexual chemistry of the main characters and possibly secondary, and lots of shows use supporting characters for comic relief. The X-Files, for example, had those characteristics.

And Bones feels closer to House than it does to either of those two shows. That doesn't mean that the show is exactly like House, or that what works on House would work on this show.

Really? I thought what made it different was its emphasis on forensic anthropology. Good character interaction is something nearly all shows strive for, and while Bones actually has good character interaction, it's not the only show that does. If the crime procedural part is so unimportant to you, why did you even start watching the show?

cmleidi

There was no other person it could have been. They were not going to make it the parents. The red-haired mother was the red herring and the annoying one from VM was too obvious. It had to be a competing contestant. Even if I didn't know, they telegraphed it clumsily with the young girl meeting the creepy brother. I knew from the beginning where the storyline was going and I was not wrong. That is my problem with some of their mysteries. I see them as too transparent. That is my right unless watching BONES requires only one interpretation/assessment.

I never once said the procedural part was unimportant only poorly plotted on occasion. I clarified my original statement to say that I would enjoy the show if ***there were episodes*** with no mysteries. Is the cross examination over do I now have to testify to my feelings about the previews being cut off by my DVR?

Jay G.

Except you said you knew at the beginning of the episode, before any of those characters were introduced. Also, why would you think the writers wouldn't make it one of the parents; is it because that would've been too "obvious"? And who is "the annoying one from VM"?

Do you mean the scene where, after Brennan's been talking to the girls, one of them goes over to meet her brother picking her up, who had just been introduced the scene before as a possible suspect? That scene was there to establish the brother, especially when they showed him wearing apparent metal-toed boots.

So you make wild guesses, and because some of them turn out to be correct, those storylines are "transparent"?

No, there can be multiple interpretations, but there's just one correct one.

You said that they could "do away" with them, which means you don't view it as that important an element to the show.

And I said that while I personally wouldn't mind such episodes, realistically I don't see that happening, inaccurate comparisons to Moonlighting aside.

It's over as soon as you want it to be. You posted an opinion, I countered that opinion. Don't take it personal.

Patman

Look, let cmleidi post a "guess of the perp" 15 minutes into each of the next 3 episodes of Bones, and if cmleidi get all 3 guesses right, then can we just chalk it up to cmleidi being very perceptive. I find this cross examination and bantering fruitless. Y'all need to get a room...

mike7162

Cut it out, you two!

clckworang

I really cracked up when I saw Beaver in this episode. His hair and the way he was dressed was just so different than I'm used to seeing him as. I couldn't help but laugh.

Jay G.

And yet, if it weren't for our "banter," this thread would've sat without any replies for about two whole days.

paradicelost

Very true.
I loved this episode since i have a lot of contempt for these "Dog Shows" as I call them. And the show basically showcased the reasons why i despise them so.

cmleidi

I don't take it personally. I enjoy lively discussions, but I just found your cross examination rather odd because I had no idea why you were so worked up. I thought perhaps you were the writer of the episode or a friend of the writer. Of all the messages I've sent to DVDTALK, I didn't think my original post in this thread would lead to such minute dissection, but if it kept the thread open for a few more days, so be it.

Anyone runs the risk of being thought dishonest when proclaiming he/she knew the identity of the murderer after the fact; I certainly understand the skepticism. As for my guessing of the murderer, Mario Van Peebles (guest hosting on Ebert and Roeper) uttered similar sentiments to the way I viewed the mystery aspect of this episode of Bones in his review of UNKNOWN.

Jay G.

I never doubted that you were telling the truth when you said you had guessed the killer. What I disagreed with was your judgment that the show had made it obvious who the killer was, or that there were flaws in the writing of the episode, especially since you've repeatedly stated you guessed at the beginning of the episode as soon as the identity of the victim was revealed.

In regards to Peebles and his opinion of the mystery in the film Unknown, he may very well be correct; I certainly haven't seen the film yet to form a contrary opinion. I also never suggested that a mystery story couldn't have a flawed narrative or make the killer obvious. However, based on my viewing of the show Bones, and this episode in particular, I don't see anything that would constitute bad writing that made the killer readily apparent for the majority of the episode.