or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Bones' on FOX HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Bones' on FOX HD - Page 2

post #31 of 649
Actually... she decided to be a stay at home mom for a while and my dreams of having a sugar momma were dashed . She did have a paper on the cover of Cell though, so she was an expert (if not a "leading expert") in her field! I admit, she skipped the Best Seller and the Karate.

-MP
post #32 of 649
I had periodic signal dropouts which may not mean anything - my neighbor's tree has recently overtaken my OTA antenna in height and I am now attempting to get a signal through foliage.

In any case I thought the acting was sub-par, the dialogue forced, and the sets were entirely too cleanly lit and far too modern. The 3D imaging system was not convincing, nor was any particular aspect of the script.

As a concept, it's a simple and elementary variation on CSI, and not one that adds any interest.

Thumbs down.

Gary
post #33 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner View Post

Well, neither is being a forensic anthropologist.

Any accredited university in the US has a minimum number of credit hours required for graduation regardless of the degree and it takes years to complete them. While it is plausible that she was on an accelerated track throughout her youth and graduated early, it is not plausible to be considered a leading expert after at most a couple of years after graduation. She would need a very well connected adviser just to get one or two grants funded and she would not be a senior supervisor in the Federal government. They have very rigid seniority requirements that cannot be altered unless she was a political appointee.
post #34 of 649
I must be in the minority on this forum. I don't need all the details to be plausible, I'm just looking to be entertained. My opinion of this show was very high since I found it to be very entertaining. The lacy underware shot in the beginning was just icing on the cake.
post #35 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Quiring View Post

They can kill it now for what I saw.

Same here. I'm a sucker for new dramas in HD but ... Bones seemed extremely weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFC View Post

I just couldn't suspend belief long enough to take the characters seriously.

Just for kicks ... in the first 5 minutes:

1. Opening scene showed an airplane landing at Reagan National Ariport (with downtown DC and the Capital in the background) captioned as "Dulles International Airport". Dulles is 20+ miles from downtown and the only background you see landing at Dulles is typical suburbia. The interior of the airport was also obviously Reagan National (or closely resembled it) and was nothing like the (very distinct) interior of Dulles. Note: For security reasons, Reagan National only serves domestic flights. All international flights (Bones was arriving on an international flight) land at Dulles.

2. There is no lake, pond, or other large body of water on or bordering Arlington National Cemetary. There are a few small pools and fountains, but nothing you could hide a body in. The closest body of water and the only one visible from the grounds is the Potomac River, which you have to cross two major highways to get to. The closest pond/lake would be a water feature on a nearby golf course, which again is seperated from the cemetary by several streets and a highway. You certainly woulnd't be walking by tombstones to get to either of these, nor call either "at the cemetary".

3. Palm trees visible in background accross lake. Last I checked, these were very rare in the DC area.

4. Several very tall buildings which obviously don't belong in the background of various shots in "downtown DC". DC is rather well known for its lack of tall buildings raising above the skyline.

Yes, anything that takes place in a "real" city is bound to have congruity problems that locals will pick up on if not almost entirely filmed on location ... and budget will restrict your on location shots. If the show is good it doesn't really matter ... then again when the show is not so good you notice these things.

But these are rather well known landmarks. How many visitors go to the Smith... er, "Jeffer"sonian each year?
post #36 of 649
I liked the episode a lot. I think people here were expecting some sort of a serious CSI-type crime drama, and I have no idea why since it was in no way promoted as that. It's supposed to be Moonlighting with criminologists. The banter and character interaction was very entertaining.
post #37 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by toastyfries View Post

Hi,

I tried to watch Bones tonight OTA from KMSB in Tucson.

Twice the audio dropped out for at least 15 seconds before I switched to analog cable to keep up with the show. After the second time I didn't try HD again.

Did anyone else have this problem? I didn't lose the video and had a fairly strong signal. Maybe it was local or a reception issue.

Thanks

The audio during "Bones" dropped out quite a few times OTA from KSAZ-DT up here in Phoenix. Very annoying.
post #38 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo Moran View Post

I must be in the minority on this forum. I don't need all the details to be plausible, I'm just looking to be entertained. My opinion of this show was very high since I found it to be very entertaining. The lacy underware shot in the beginning was just icing on the cake.

Emily Deschanel - not too shabby either!
post #39 of 649
Well, I didn't take the show too seriously, so I didn't think it was that bad.

Let's not forget, some folks who are in their mid-30s look like they're in their mid-20s. Hell, I'll be thirty this year, but everyone who meets me for the first time think that I'm only 21 (and act that way also!). Of course, that goes both ways.
post #40 of 649
The series is based on the characters in books writen by Kathy Reichs who based her main character on herself. www.kathyreichs.com I agree the show wasn't that good I'll watch a few more also and see what happens.
post #41 of 649
I really injoyed it. I'm not gonna worry about anything being realistic or not like sets, technics or anything of the sort. It's just a TV show to entertain, It's not an educational show nor a documentory of realistic enviroments. It's Entertainment.
post #42 of 649
On the subject of audio dropouts, I had dropouts across the board with Comcast in Boston last night. From Bones on Fox-HD to Supernatural on WB-HD to Rescue Me on standard-def FX. I assumed it was a loose cable in my system or something, so I unplugged and replugged everything at the end of the night. It's weird that a lot of other people are talking about dropouts with this show.
post #43 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I liked the episode a lot. I think people here were expecting some sort of a serious CSI-type crime drama, and I have no idea why since it was in no way promoted as that. It's supposed to be Moonlighting with criminologists. The banter and character interaction was very entertaining.

I did not think that Fox promoted this as Moonlighting with criminologists. I viewed Moonlighting as primarily a comedy, while Bones is clearly a drama first. It reminds me more of NCIS.
post #44 of 649
The very first scene of "Dulles International Airport" with the Capitol dome in the background told me they weren't worried about the reality of this show. All the airport scenes were at national. The outside shots of the big glass dome building that is supposed to be part of some museum and her lab looked to me like the National Arboretum.

All that really doesn't matter to most people who will watch this show. It has potential, but the writing better get a whole lot better if it's going to last. And as has been mentioned, my wife likes it because of Angel - he's just so dreamy.
post #45 of 649
Blah. Tivo Season pass deleted.

OMG, David Boreanaz can't act, he's sooo wooden. He was fine on "Buffy" as a supporting character, got weaker on "Angel" where he had to do more than mumble a few lines each week and brood around Sunnydale, but clearly doesn't have the talent to be a main character on anything more than a 2nd tier network like the WB.

Acting aside, the show was a bit boring, just watch one of the numberous CSI's instead.

Afterward, the wife and I watched "Supernatural" on the WB and got a nice surprise. More entertaining than I expected. Sort of a cross between Buffy and X-files.
post #46 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmbatch View Post

And as has been mentioned, my wife likes it because of Angel - he's just so dreamy.

That's the only reason my wife added it to Tivo as a season pass... but he certainly can't hold a bad show up (as was quickly learned with Angel on the WB).
post #47 of 649
Fox could do worse for a lead in to House. On the other hand, they could have done better.
post #48 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepicman View Post

No problems (other than the storyline, acting and script) OTA in ATL.

TPM

Plus the main character couldn't even pronounce dem ear bones correctly.
post #49 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiehl View Post

That's the only reason my wife added it to Tivo as a season pass... but he certainly can't hold a bad show up (as was quickly learned with Angel on the WB).

Angel lasted 5 seasons on the WB and has an expansive fan base. What the hell are you talking about?
post #50 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Angel lasted 5 seasons on the WB and has an expansive fan base. What the hell are you talking about?

5 seasons or not, the show was cancelled. Most "good" shows go out on their own terms, not when the network pulls the plug on them. For the WB to give Joss Whedon 5yrs of rope with Angel was probably more of a product of Buffy's success than anything.
post #51 of 649
I'm just wondering if she bust up an HD TV with her bat?
post #52 of 649
That show was pathetically bad. The acting, the hysterically bland characters, the cheesy music, the plot, the dialogue, everything. I was severely disappointed.

And I'm not too sure I'm liking the changes they're trying to make to House either (and I'm obcessed with that show). Hopefully House will get better again. I have confidence.
post #53 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Angel lasted 5 seasons on the WB and has an expansive fan base. What the hell are you talking about?


If it had that expansive a fan base, it is hard to imagine the WB cancelling it.
Especially considering that last season (the year after "Angel" was axed) the top-rated WB program (7th Heaven) finished 107th for the season with an average of 5.3 million viewers -- just behind the NBC ratings disaster "The Office" (5.4 million viewers.)

Clearly the "Angel" fan base was vocal, and the DVD sales have been strong -- particularly for a program with such (comparatively) low ratings.

But it seems to me that if the fan base were truly expansive, the desperate WB execs (who managed to come up with nine of the 2004-2005 season's lowest-rated 11 shows) would never have cancelled it.
post #54 of 649
I thought Angel was one of the top rated WB shows but it was costing way too much to produce. If fact, at the time, I remember people asking why lower rated shows were being kept and Angel was being canceled.
post #55 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiehl View Post

Most "good" shows go out on their own terms, not when the network pulls the plug on them.

Interesting. Most of the "good" shows I like were prematurely canned, and the ones that weren't usually limped on a season or two longer than they should have. Five seasons -- 110 hour-long episodes -- is a very good run, and few series ever approach that point. Arguing that Angel must inherently be a bad show because it only had five season is ridiculous. If you watched the seventh season of Buffy and the fourth season of Angel -- both of which aired at the same time -- and thought Buffy was vastly superior to what was happening on Angel, then...I'd be at a loss. Not sure what to say. I'm sure Buffy's earlier successes played a massive role in Angel lingering as long as it did, but there have been dozens of spin-offs of successful shows, many of which never made it past a first season. If Angel weren't doing well enough, the WB would've cancelled it without hesitation.

It's a silly point to debate, though; ratings are an indicator of viewership, not quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

But it seems to me that if the fan base were truly expansive, the desperate WB execs (who managed to come up with nine of the 2004-2005 season's lowest-rated 11 shows) would never have cancelled it.

If it had been an in-house production instead of Fox's, who knows...? Maybe it'd still be on the air. I doubt it's a coincidence that the show was cancelled with a WB-produced vampire series slated to take its place (even though Dark Shadows wound up never making it to air).

I'm sure you know it doesn't matter how many total viewers you have -- a series can be extremely profitable with lower ratings as long as it brings in the right demographic.
post #56 of 649
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthemAZ.HDTV View Post

The audio during "Bones" dropped out quite a few times OTA from KSAZ-DT up here in Phoenix. Very annoying.

Ah, It's my understanding that KMSB in Tucson is run by the Phoenix guys or something like that. Maybe that's why we both had the problem.
post #57 of 649
KMSB is owned by Belo who owns channel 3 in phoenix. Fox10 phoenix is o&o by fox.

Someone called in and about half way through and the audio problem went away.
post #58 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa View Post

But it seems to me that if the fan base were truly expansive, the desperate WB execs (who managed to come up with nine of the 2004-2005 season's lowest-rated 11 shows) would never have cancelled it.

Angel's ratings were actually up in its fifth season. The WB cancelled it because:

1) It was an expensive show to produce.

and

2) The network made a conscious marketing decision to exclusively target the 11-25 year old demographic, but Angel's audience skewed older.

Hence they opted to replace the series with less expensive shows that aim for younger viewers. This has nothing to do with the quality of Angel as a show or David Boreanaz's ability to carry a series, neither of which was ever in question.
post #59 of 649
It's usually retention in the following weeks that determine if a show stays on. First week success is often due to marketing. At least that's what I've noticed from Fox and their itchy trigger finger.

And I agree, The Inside (with the girl from Dumb and Dumberer) is much better. And that girl is cuter than Bones, who's only kind of cartoonish cute with her small mouth.
post #60 of 649
Quote:


I must be in the minority on this forum. I don't need all the details to be plausible, I'm just looking to be entertained. My opinion of this show was very high since I found it to be very entertaining. The lacy underware shot in the beginning was just icing on the cake.

Bummer. That scene must have been one I missed with my technical problems.

And Angel was one of my favorite shows for the whole 5 seasons. I'd be more than happy if Bones was even half as good.

- Tom
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › 'Bones' on FOX HD