Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon POLL : What did you think of Bones - The Dude in the Dam?
Sign Up


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Get In Touch
 Join SpoilerTV
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

POLL : What did you think of Bones - The Dude in the Dam?

Nov 12, 2013

Share on Reddit

-
Sign Up for the SpoilerTV Newsletter where we talk all things TV!

16 comments:

  1. klutzy_girlNovember 12, 2013 at 1:59 AM

    What is wrong with them? Why did they have to do the Hodgins storyline? Why? Just why?

    It was a good episode otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1marsNovember 12, 2013 at 2:05 AM

    Awful, scientists that subject himself to disease, bitchy Brennan, too much Sweets, TG this is last seasons "bonus ep".

    ReplyDelete
  3. DetectivexoNovember 12, 2013 at 2:08 AM

    Hodgins was unbelievable I'll never recover but it was partly cool and partly gross I liked the ase of the week though

    ReplyDelete
  4. SarahNovember 12, 2013 at 2:17 AM

    I agree about Hodgins, but I liked it better over all than last week.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amanda PetrieNovember 12, 2013 at 7:03 AM

    the only interesting bit of the episode was Hodgins. There was next to no forensic anthropology and the storyline lacked complexity. Writers need to do better of they want to be renewed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. deborahNovember 12, 2013 at 8:35 AM

    Umm you do realise that Kathy Reichs wrote this episode don't you? I think she knows a bit about her subject ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. EmelieNovember 12, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    It was squeamish to watch but I loved it. It was something different and in the second half Brennan has shown how far she has come ... She actually knows what tact is which I don't think she did in the early seasons.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Amanda PetrieNovember 12, 2013 at 11:24 AM

    there's no denying she knows her stuff, but as the credited writer, she doesn't *really* write the episode per say. She gives the ideas to the writing team and then gives suggestions... really, at least 10 people write it. Perhaps they chose to use her expertise in the literacy world, rather than her criminal knowledge for this episode. .Reichs is, of course, a novelist, not a career television writer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AdeleNovember 12, 2013 at 1:52 PM

    she actually literally wrote this episode with her daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AdeleNovember 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM

    it was a lot of fun, I liked it. Hodgins ew, just ew. Loved the Brennan/Sweets scene and the last Brennan/Brown scene, good twist.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Amanda PetrieNovember 13, 2013 at 12:19 AM

    i'm not sure how you know that but my thoughts are the same. It lacked forensic anthropology and complexity. And Kathy Reichs is a novelist, not a known screen writer. I was disappointed- whether it was the editing of the story line or the original script, I feel that they need to do better to get the ratings for renewal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Amanda PetrieNovember 13, 2013 at 12:21 AM

    I thought that was the best bit of the episode... rest was pretty boring.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AdeleNovember 13, 2013 at 7:11 PM

    how do I know she wrote it? it's in the credits and she and other members of the crew talked about it on twitter. It's funny you are talking about "lack of forensic anthropology" in an episode written by a FA herself and novelist...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Amanda PetrieNovember 14, 2013 at 2:43 AM

    No matter who wrote the episode, compared to other episodes, this episode distinctly lack FA- it concentrated on the feud between he authors and entomology. Go back and watch it and compare it to other episodes.


    One or two writers are normally given credit for an episode, but in reality a room full of writers write the episodes, with two "lead" writers. It's just the way the industry works. Remember the screen writers guild strike? If just one or two people write an episode then Hart Hansen or another producer/director could have simply written episodes until the end of the strike.... it's just how the industry works.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AdeleNovember 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM

    I know very well how the process works, but what does it even matter? They've had episodes less focused on FA before, so? it's not a show about forensic antropology, but about solving crimes, usually using anthropological clues to solve them, but not always, so really, what does it matter?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Amanda PetrieNovember 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM

    what sets bones apart from other forensic shows like the NCISs and the CSIs is the FA. That's one of the major draws. I MY opinion, there wasn't enough of it this episode, to differentiate the show as anything special. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE bones- it's my favourite show, I just didn't like the episode at all. If they want to be renewed, they need to be writing to get new viewers- not boring the existing ones.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.