TV: Bones
Imagie this board meeting, if you will:
TV Exec 1: "Guys, guys, I totally have a great idea. What if we combine the snappy, witty dialogue of the Gilmore Girls with a procedural drama like CSI or--stay with me on this--CSI: Miami."
TV Exec 2: "Hey, that's fab-o, really, but Miami? It's so 2002. What about someplace where we can toss in political references and storylines that feed into the CSI: Gilmore vibe. I'm thinking the nation's most important city . . . "
TV Exec 3: "But there's already so many shows set in New York . . . "
TV Exec 2: "Right, but I meant Washington D.C."
TV Exec 1: "OK, but what about characters? I mean, I'm thinking a tough as nails forensic anthropologist--"
TV Exec 2: "A what now?"
TV Exec 1: "You know, someone who does cool stuff with bones."
TV Exec 3: "And a woman!"
TV Exec 2: "Perfect! And since it's a woman, we'll flip every stereotype ever on it's head, and make her all intellectual and stuff, instead of warm and friendly. They'll never see it coming!"
TV Exec 1:"And a partner--someone smooth, sophisticated, a people-skills man; the heart to her brains."
TV Exec 3: "I love it! And what if we tossed in a holographic computer for no real reason."
TV Execs 1 and 2: "Awesome!"
--end scene--
This is pretty much how I imagine the pitch session went for Fox's new drama Bones (Tuesdays at 8:00 eastern), which actually makes the show sound a lot more awful than it actually is. There's a lot to like about this show, I think. The dialogue, while not the usual fare for a procedural show, is actually pretty entertaining and makes the characters pretty likeable and interesting. The two lead actors--Emily Deschanel as Dr. Temperance Brennan and David Boreanaz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans will know him as Angel) as FBI Special Agent (and awkwardly named) Seeley Booth--are both good fits for their characters and fun to watch. And good procedurals can still be good shows--see Fox's surprise hit from last year, House.
But the procedural genre feels too confining for this show, and I hope that as the season progresses there are longer story arcs and fewer one-shot episodes. The series pilot, while entertaining, wrapped up way to quickly and overall just felt like it wanted to hustle to the end.
My other complaints are mostly aesthetic. Since, when for example, do all scientific labs have 30 foot-plus ceilings and open air tables for experiments--wouldn't that make it hard to keep tests and workspaces free from contamination? Also, that stupid holographic computer: good idea for reconstructing faces on bones, bad idea for showing re-enactments of how someone was killed (watch it, you'll see what I mean). I get the idea that it's a cool new technology to exploit, but let's not be ridiculous.
I'll keep an eye on this show. It's got some kinks to work out, but it's got potential. If the notoriously itchy-trigger-fingered Fox execs allow the show to grow a little, executives (give me a good, long story, and tone down the flashy style in favor of substance) and I'll keep watching every week. Keep it on the 44 minute procedural, and I'll watch it when I can, but I won't make an appointment out of it.
Acting and writing: 4 cents
Style and feel: 2 cents
Final score: 3 cents--say it with me now--with potential (though I wouldn't be surprised if, given the pre-House time slot, this show became one of Fox's bigger new shows)
TV Exec 1: "Guys, guys, I totally have a great idea. What if we combine the snappy, witty dialogue of the Gilmore Girls with a procedural drama like CSI or--stay with me on this--CSI: Miami."
TV Exec 2: "Hey, that's fab-o, really, but Miami? It's so 2002. What about someplace where we can toss in political references and storylines that feed into the CSI: Gilmore vibe. I'm thinking the nation's most important city . . . "
TV Exec 3: "But there's already so many shows set in New York . . . "
TV Exec 2: "Right, but I meant Washington D.C."
TV Exec 1: "OK, but what about characters? I mean, I'm thinking a tough as nails forensic anthropologist--"
TV Exec 2: "A what now?"
TV Exec 1: "You know, someone who does cool stuff with bones."
TV Exec 3: "And a woman!"
TV Exec 2: "Perfect! And since it's a woman, we'll flip every stereotype ever on it's head, and make her all intellectual and stuff, instead of warm and friendly. They'll never see it coming!"
TV Exec 1:"And a partner--someone smooth, sophisticated, a people-skills man; the heart to her brains."
TV Exec 3: "I love it! And what if we tossed in a holographic computer for no real reason."
TV Execs 1 and 2: "Awesome!"
--end scene--
This is pretty much how I imagine the pitch session went for Fox's new drama Bones (Tuesdays at 8:00 eastern), which actually makes the show sound a lot more awful than it actually is. There's a lot to like about this show, I think. The dialogue, while not the usual fare for a procedural show, is actually pretty entertaining and makes the characters pretty likeable and interesting. The two lead actors--Emily Deschanel as Dr. Temperance Brennan and David Boreanaz (Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans will know him as Angel) as FBI Special Agent (and awkwardly named) Seeley Booth--are both good fits for their characters and fun to watch. And good procedurals can still be good shows--see Fox's surprise hit from last year, House.
But the procedural genre feels too confining for this show, and I hope that as the season progresses there are longer story arcs and fewer one-shot episodes. The series pilot, while entertaining, wrapped up way to quickly and overall just felt like it wanted to hustle to the end.
My other complaints are mostly aesthetic. Since, when for example, do all scientific labs have 30 foot-plus ceilings and open air tables for experiments--wouldn't that make it hard to keep tests and workspaces free from contamination? Also, that stupid holographic computer: good idea for reconstructing faces on bones, bad idea for showing re-enactments of how someone was killed (watch it, you'll see what I mean). I get the idea that it's a cool new technology to exploit, but let's not be ridiculous.
I'll keep an eye on this show. It's got some kinks to work out, but it's got potential. If the notoriously itchy-trigger-fingered Fox execs allow the show to grow a little, executives (give me a good, long story, and tone down the flashy style in favor of substance) and I'll keep watching every week. Keep it on the 44 minute procedural, and I'll watch it when I can, but I won't make an appointment out of it.
Acting and writing: 4 cents
Style and feel: 2 cents
Final score: 3 cents--say it with me now--with potential (though I wouldn't be surprised if, given the pre-House time slot, this show became one of Fox's bigger new shows)
Joel's two cents. | 4:27 PM
<< Home