Bones 3.08 The Knight on the Grid

begolden · Post by **begolden** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:44 am

I was again disappointed with the lack of Squint action in this episode. TJ had some small scenes, and he was amazing as ever, but what really bothers me is the appropriation of traditional Hodgins' lines by the psychologist, Sweets! Why on earth are they bringing that character into the lab to make the educated leaps that are right up Hodgins' alley? Am I overreacting? (I posted my displeasure over on the Fox Forum under the thread about the actor who plays Sweets).

Overall, there were too many reoccurring guest actors in this episode, plus Russ's girlfriend and adopted daughter. I'm always glad to see Patricia Belcher as our favorite DA, but I could do without the rest of them (Brennan's family and Sweets). So little time left for the actual plot of the episode, or screentime for the Squints' back stories.

One of the best scenes was Hodgins accompanying Booth to the crypt. They had some very nice interplay, and Jack ask enthusiastically if he can break open the door--Booth turns him down with a pretty funny comeback. Let's get Hodgins out in the field more often! (I posted a thread on that one, too, over at Fox...)

Very little Jack and Angela. One little shot of them as part of the closing montage with Angela looking at the book and Jack comes up and puts his hands on her shoulders and they smile at each other.

I hope we get something other than the B/B kiss next week... Hey, I think Jack and Angela are about due for some more kissing, aren't they? Come to think of it, a new bedroom scene for them is way overdue...

KimberHodgela · Post by **KimberHodgela** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:18 am

Hee, you beat me to it, Rebecca! I was too braindead last night to make a post, so I'm glad you did!

I'm in totally agreement with all of your points, but mostly about Sweets. I have not enjoyed this character since he first appeared, and it nearly broke my heart when I learned that the actor was being made a "regular". Aren't the Squints already lacking in due screen time? But now they've added a new character, who (yes, in addition to the madness that is Brennan's family, court action with Caroline, and the force-fed B/B moments) is going to STEAL lines right from under our Squints' noses? Oy, that made me angry.

The episode itself was quite entertaining with all of the Gormogon action, but by far my favourite bit was the same as yours - the field work with Jack and Hodgins. I love how TJ plays Jack as still being so excited about everything still, and I think it really shows a pure love for his job and his field.

I'm really hoping that Gormogon's next victim will be Sweets, though, is that wrong? And I do believe that we are definitely long overdue for a bedroom scene between Jack and Angela. And preferably at his mansion, too. Is that too much to ask for?

Post by **ThyneAlone** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:29 pm

If you are dropping in at the Fox forum you will see that people suspect that Sweets IS Gormagon, or his Sith apprentice, or whatever the expression should be.

Girls, you need to take me through the plot of this. I haven't picked up a Net viewing yet and the sides were just confusing. But I am finding things very discouraging from your much-valued, always relevant and perceptive points of view. Too many people to make room for squints and extras? Not enough Hodgela? Someone appropriating our boy's lines?. And all this kissteria?

I'll be calling in at Fox too to support you, Rebecca, but obviously what I have to say will be limited until I've seen the ep.

begolden · Post by **begolden** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:09 pm

ThyneAlone wrote:And all this kissteria?

ROTFLMAO! Classic!

I really couldn't tell you much about the episode itself. As I was watching it in real time, a friend of mine called and needed to tell me about her break up with her boyfriend (they've since reconciled). I rewatched this morning, but already knew I'd be bored with all the Brennan's family bits, so I fast-forwarded through every scene that didn't involve TJ.

I sure hope Sweets is the killer. That way there would be an end to his role at some point in time.

Sinkwriter72 · Post by **Sinkwriter72** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:26 pm

I don't know... for a cannibal, Sweets doesn't look like he's got a lot of 'meat' on his bones.

Sorry. That was crass of me to say. Hee.

I'd love to comment on this episode, but I'm currently in Oregon (or, for Rebecca the X-Phile, that would be the 'plauuuusible state of Oregon,' LOL). Took a spur-of-the-moment, almost completely unplanned trip to visit a friend, in order to (I hope) help clear my head and come back home with some renewed, refreshed perspective after all the chaos of the past months and the end of my (now former) job. Because I'm out of town, I won't be able to see last night's episode or next week's episode (not as they air in real time, anyway). I'll be flying back from Oregon next Tuesday afternoon, so by the time I get home, the episode will be long over (because of the flights, as well as losing two hours with the time changes). But I set my recorder to tape both episodes, so here's hoping there's no power outages or recording issues!

I'm really looking forward to checking out these episodes, though I'm a little sad to hear that it sounds as if TJ didn't get to play a bigger role in this week's show. Harrumph.

I too am not exactly thrilled with the Sweets character. Though he is entertaining in his own way, I think -- like you have all noted -- he's taking valuable screen time from the regular characters (the squints) who need that time for character and story developments of their own. And secondly, because I really liked Stephen Fry's character (actually, 'like' is not a strong enough adjective -- I adore the man); therefore, to have a new psychologist pop up in his place is not my cup of tea (to borrow from Wyatt, heh).

begolden · Post by **begolden** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:03 pm

Sinkwriter72 wrote:I don't know... for a cannibal, Sweets doesn't look like he's got a lot of 'meat' on his bones.

Sorry. That was crass of me to say. Hee.

I'd love to comment on this episode, but I'm currently in Oregon (or, for Rebecca the X-Phile, that would be the 'plauuuusible state of Oregon,' LOL).

Adding a ROTFLMAO to your LOL, Sherry! Oregon sounds delightful--I love the Pacific Northwest... sigh...

And hey Kimber, nice plug for TJThyne.com over on 206 Bones! Very smooth indeed... wonder if you'll lure some new recruits over here?

Post by **ThyneAlone** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:58 pm

Not seen it Kimber - though, kudos! - I 'm not a member up there and don't want to get bogged down in visiting huge numbers of other sites as well as the 6 or 7 that I habitually frequent! Can everyone please ensure we get a plug on other sites if it's allowed? It would be lovely to have more members.

Post by **ThyneAlone** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:06 am

Ok, saw it on youtube a mere 2 hours after it was posted there, and you know what, people? Disappointed. I'm used to 'Bones' having a solid plotline, disciplined dialogue, witty repartee, imaginative direction.

What did we get? Well:

average directing which looked dreary by comparison with some S1 eps and even resembled a common-or-garden procedural at times (nothing against them - I just get antsy when things are almost totally plot-driven, I'm a character junkie).
a far-fetched and complicated exposition which didn't get near explaining who was who (I'm still seeing posts elsewhere asking who is the Master and who's the Apprentice)
long periods of unnecessary verbiage, which I am afraid has been the case ever since the advent of the ubiquitous Sweets
family stories that were underlined enough to make them overshadow the main plot at times
far too many characters on board for any of them to get a fair bite of any of the meaty bits (oops)
some ridiculous plot devices (he's been watching them through a camera that they never noticed? The symbols conveniently invert to pinpoint definite map locations? Somebody had his teeth extracted to use in a bomb?? Puh - lease.)
Almost No Hodgela!

I'll probably think of other things I disliked in time, but this is on first viewing. They outnumber the instances I liked. But I was glad that Angela had so much to do with the art and the clues, and that the squints had at least a few moments of working out ideas together. I loved when Jack and Booth entered the crypt, that was atmospheric and also funny (they are so good together). BtVS fans out there, did that not take you back to its 2-part pilot and Buffy breaking into a crypt that led into the sewer system, while Angel stood behind and advised her not to?

Ooh - btw - I have decided I don't like Sweets. I don't trust him and I don't like him hanging round the lab even if he has something to contribute. The amount he knows is way too creepy and his eyes and mouth don't look sincere (I know that sounds weird, but I do like eyes and mouths and I do look at them. For classic sincere eyes and mouth, qv TJ).

More later I expect! Does anyone know if the rumours are well-founded that next week's Santa will be the last new ep we get in a while?

EDIT Y'know...truly, am I really churlish and grumpy? All the reviews I am reading for this are praising it to the skies. I honestly don't think it's worth the plaudits which are being poured on it. Is it me? Or is the rest of the world on a kind of odd angle to reality?[/color]

KimberHodgela · Post by **KimberHodgela** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:45 pm

begolden wrote:I sure hope Sweets is the killer. That way there would be an end to his role at some point in time.

WORD. Any storyline that will get Sweets off my show is welcomed by me.

And also ... "kissteria" ... hee. That's hilarious. So, so true. It's definitely going to be major kissteria in B/B Land next week after Bones, and I'm not too sure how I feel about it. I've been thinking about 'ships lately, and which ones I actually want to see hook up on TV, and I'm almost convinced that B/B isn't one of them. I think I rather enjoy the sexual tension, and the cute moments (when they aren't blatantly obvious ... aka this entire season, almost, and when they aren't practically rammed down our throats numerous times in one 44 min block). With our Hodgela, that was definitely a relationship that I wanted to see happen, even though the flirting was cute, but with B/B? I'm not sure. And the thing that upset me most about kissteria is that, even if something amazing and wonderful happens with any other character/pairing, you know that kissteria will be all anybody mentions.

ThyneAlone wrote:More later I expect! Does anyone know if the rumours are well-founded that next week's Santa will be the last new ep we get in a while? Sad

I think that "Santa" will be the last new ep that we get this year, but there are still a few unaired episodes somewhere. I believe there were 12 filmed, and "Santa" is technically #10 (or is it now #9, since it's coming before the actual #9? Could Fox confuse us anymore??). Which means we've still got 3 new episodes for the new year, by my count, which should air sometime in January and/or February. I'm not sure how Fox will play it, whether they'll stretch them out and show one new episode per month, or if they'll just air them in all in December, and then make way for the garbage that is reality/game show TV.

Post by **ThyneAlone** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:54 pm

Thanks for that Kimber. Ooh, am I on simulpost with you? It's nice to know there's someone else around at what for me is the godforsaken nearly-midnight hour!

I want rid of Sweets too. I think I would be a happy individual if there was an ep that Fox didn't reschedule in some way, which was minus little Lance, included the squints out of the lab and left the previously delicate, complex BB relationship to regain a bit of subtlety and dignity instead of subjecting us to those awful meaningful exchanges of glances which have now actually become sufficiently prolonged to hold up the action at times!! <<sigh>>