That was cute. I'm interested to see where they're going to strike that new balance between a drama & a procedural. I hope it works out.

korkster | August 20, 21:35 CET

I think they're trying to find the balance between a drama and a comedy. It was never intended to be a procedural. The cases were always supposed to be the backdrop for the character stuff. That actually gets them in trouble with some fans that want more of a CSI procedural type show.

resa | August 20, 23:35 CET

That's my point, resa. I always saw Bones on a more humor side, but it was also more in touch with the cases at hand. Recently, however, they've drawn away from that, and there has been mention of flack. I'm curious to see if they'll continue to revolve around the cases, or will they eventually toss that aside altogether. If so, then what does Bones become?

korkster | August 21, 01:45 CET

I've seen some clips of the pilot and based on that and on some sides I've read I don't think they're throwing the procedural aspects of the show aside. It looks like the writers are using the cases to drive the character development not the other way around. There is some humor but at least in the clips ... not too much.

resa | August 21, 01:51 CET

Y'know, DB has said that about the characters being important a few times and it's a great sentiment (and true to boot ;) but I think it's going a bit far to claim the show was never intended to be a procedural. It very clearly is a procedural IMO and has been from the start - whichever elements the writers/actors choose to emphasise - it's just a good one ('NYPD Blue' was a police procedural very heavy on character for instance).

Saying it isn't seems (no offence ;) to be a bit like when people claim BSG isn't sci-fi because, basically, they don't like sci-fi but they like BSG so therefore it can't be. If you don't normally like procedurals but you like 'Bones' well, guess what, you like procedurals, it's just that you prefer the ones with more emphasis on character development and a sense of humour ;).

Saje | August 21, 11:42 CET

I get what you're saying Saje, but it isn't me saying Bones isn't a procedural. Hart Hanson told the network from the very beginning that he didn't want to do a procedural and the network agreed. And DB told Hart that he wasn't interested in doing a procedural either but he liked 'this FBI guy'. I agree that it took some time for the character elements to gel, but apparently, they never intended for the procedural elements to overshadow the character developments.
But I agree with you that whatever Bones is ... it is good. :)

resa | August 21, 15:10 CET

Hah, OK I guess the creator would know what he intended ;).

(haveta say though, if he's trying to not make a procedural I think he's failing pretty miserably cos it very clearly is. After all, we see the steps in the procedure of them catching criminals, in fact a lot of the squint stuff is just that - watching them do forensic science, just like with CSI)

Saje | August 21, 16:35 CET

I think that he doesn't consider Bones a procedural because the emphasis of the show is on the characters - not the procedure.

resa | August 21, 18:54 CET

Well, I won't belabour the point - suffice it to say that if he defines procedural as "a show without character moments" then 'Bones' is indeed not a procedural but to me he's defining himself out of a situation he doesn't want to be in based on his own pre-conception that procedurals are "too plotty" with no real character development or resonance. Some are, some aren't, same as anything.

Maybe it's a cultural thing - over here procedurals are often as much about the characters involved as the crime itself (e.g. 'Prime Suspect' which has won numerous awards and plaudits for its character based acting and writing or 'A Touch of Frost' or 'Dalziel and Pascoe' or 'Touching Evil' and so on) so that it's maybe less of a "dirty word". That said though, I still contend plenty of US procedurals are also character oriented with, as mentioned, 'NYPD Blue' or 'The Shield' or 'Life' (or 'Hill Street Blues' going further back). One of those pot-a-to pot-ah-to things I guess ;).

Saje | August 21, 20:55 CET