This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Keep on walking, preacherman."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 31 October 2014




Tweet







May 02 2010

Zap2It Inaugural TV Show Smackdown: Bones vs. Castle. "You may have noticed that "Bones" and "Castle" have a few things in common: Passionate fans, grisly (but sometimes funny!) murder cases, leading men who previously starred on Joss Whedon shows."

The article came out April 28th, but I didn't see it posted here. Based on the writers' opinions, I think it would be a much better "fight" if Bones wasn't on 3 years more than Castle. And do you agree with the informal Twitter poll (on page 2 of 11)?

I couldn't find the twitter poll, but I love my Captain: I think that Castle is the better show.
Nope, I'm going with David Boreanaz and his squints. Bones is the better show, it's more interesting, and the chemistry between the two leads is far better than that of Castle. And the awkward fun between the supporting characters is always hilarious!

Bones will always win. Always.

With the ratings, might I add that Bones has never had a strong lead-in, and it has proven that it can stand on its own two feet; Castle has DWTS, and has yet to prove it can.
Gotta go with embers on this one. Castle is fun, Bones is derivative.
Castle is Murder, She Wrote with a male lead.

[ edited by Frick on 2010-05-03 00:18 ]
It used to be Bones for me, but they've dragged out the Booth/Brennan relationship too far. I've just lost all interest. Castle and Beckett have such amazing chemistry.
Bones vs. Castle. Nope, can't see Castle fighting Bones. Booth though. Totally could see Castle and Booth fighting.
Bones will always win for me. I love the science, absolutely totally. That makes the show so much more interesting for me. I also love Hodgins, Angela, and Sweets much more than the supporting characters in Castle. Whose names I can't even remember at the moment.

I don't find Bones derivative at all.

I can see Castle and Booth fighting with Booth kicking the crap out of Castle and Castle taking it like a man.
I refuse to choose. You may as well be asking, "Which ice cream is better, Häagen-Dazs' strawberry or chocolate?" Two distinct flavors, both of which are off-the-charts awesome.
Personally, I'm shocked David beat Nathan in a twitter poll. I thought Nathan owned the twitter crowd.
If I were asked to choose between the two on who was sexiest, I would however have to go with Nathan. Despite everything, I've always been a Mal fan and I will always be a Mal fan.
I love Castle. A lot of that is due to Nathan's charm. Bones, on the other hand, I've never been able to enjoy.
I don't understand how the Bones character can be a best-selling author when she seems to have no understanding of human social behaviour and interaction.
How does she write realistic characters?
I ain't picking. Love them both.
Kathy Reichs is a forensic anthropologist by trade. She would be an anti-Joss. Joss will write trades from a background in writing (think Charles Gunn legal speak.) Reichs writes from a background in science and writes from that background.

Just two different approaches. And I think "No understanding" is a bit harsh.
Azzers, I don't think Tober was referring to Kathy Reichs. Rather, he was referring to the fact that the character, Temperance Brennan, (although never outright stated) is written as if she has Asperger's Syndrome. One of the most significant symptoms of Asperger's is a lack of empathy with other people. That's the "no understanding" that Tober referred to.
Sorry, I wasn't talking about Kathy Reichs, but the character on the show (who I know is loosely based on her).
But they show constantly that Temperance 'Bones' Brennan seems to not understand simple social interaction and "normal" western behaviour. I guess it's supposed to be a contrast to her studies as an anthropologist, and meant for humour, but I don't see how she could write realistic characters in her novels (the fictional novels on the show.)

I like the show okay, and always watch it. I think I like Castle a little more.
azzers, the character of Temperance is emotionally detached and has some trouble understanding other people's feelings. It has nothing to do with the real author on whom she is loosely based.

Tober27, they finally addressed that point in a recent episode. It bothered me too for a long time.

I do like Bones a lot despite its deep aversion to sensical plotlines outside the forensic stuff. The acting is great and the show's fake science is really fun. I tried Castle early on and didn't like the tone or the writing at all.
Don't know how much of a best-selling author Bones is. Castle's a NY Times Best selling author...15 weeks on the NY Times list. We will see how well the Heat Wave paperback does in July.
Oh- I love that ice cream anology! I could never pick the best Häagen-Dazs' flavor.
How about a scope of Bones & Castle to go?
Spacegirl3200,

One scoop of vanilla (for Bones) and one scoop of Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough (for Castle) with cherry syrup (for blood).
Now I'm hungry...
Castle is Murder, She Wrote with a male lead.

Which does not make it "not" fun.
Bones always wins for me -- there isn't much comparison. I know a lot of people are complaining about "They still aren't together" and so on, but personally I don't think that's the main part of the show(Too many other factors that I don't want to all name right now). The tension is just fine for me. It's an awesome show with a great cast, great cases etc, and the chemistry hasn't died for me yet so it it works still(Plus I'm not sure "giving up on a show" is a sentence in my vocab.). It deserved the win!
Plus David just rocks my own crazy socks any day.

Not to say I don't think Castle is a good show. I saw a few episodes, but it just never clicked for me as well as Bones did. I love my captain but he can't win them all!

So yea Bones! Well deserved win.
All in all, this seems to present a lob-sided analysis since a lot of the criteria is going to favor whichever show has been on longer. It would make more sense in this context to compare - say - just the first two seasons of each show.
Yes, as someone said above Booth and Castle should have a fight. Shirtless. Covered in oil . . . I'd watch it.
Brinderwalt -- Yea I thought about that too, but the thing is their ratings are both quite equal so enough people have seen both. Plus most of the things established in Bones was established very early on(Except for the resolution of Max and then Gormogon. From what I've seen in the smallest form is most of their points came from the first two seasons of Bones. That is the serial killers, the family issues, the Squints etc. So I think they did an okay job at making it balance out.

(The only thing that would be slightly tilted in the favor of Bones is the chemistry. See, not perfect but well done -- like steak.)
To me they're essentially the same show. Comedic quasi-procedurals that are very dependent on the dynamic between the lead characters. Fun, but not shows I get too attached to other than wanting to see David and Nathan every week.
There was a time when I enjoyed watching Bones more than Castle, only because the latter was still trying to find its feet in the first few episodes. Now, to my utmost surprise, while I enjoy both, I'm leaning more towards Castle. It's light, comical and just plain fun. JCKnights3707, I do know what you mean about the relationship between Booth and Brennan being dragged out. I'm not saying the show rests entirely on the interaction between the leads, but quite a chunk of its success is due to that factor. For some inexplicable reason, I keep feeling like the tension has become almost forced now and like David, I do actually find myself preferring the two not being together and remaining partners/close friends. That said, they are both quite different in tone and style. I love the supporting cast on Bones, Sweets in particular, while Castle brings a light dynamic that is delightful to end the week with. (it airs on Sundays in Australia).
Perhaps they should've compared the first two seasons of Bones with all of Castle so far. Of course Bones will come out on top when it comes to issues that need time to develop.
I like Bones. I love Castle. Castle is just more fun.
@Tober27, it was established in a Season 5 episode ("Bones on the Blue Line") that Angela helps Bones with the characters. But Bones thinks the forensic science is the most important thing in the book.
Bones or Castle? Hummm.... I'd say... neither one for me.
If there is ever a cross-over show (besides the fan-fiction sites), it should be held at a literal castle of bones: the Capuchini Bone Chapel.
I guess that's fine then.
I must have missed a bit in that episode. I thought Angela just gave her some ideas, like the sex stuff.
Still seems a little off to me though, but is some explanation at least.
I get ya, Tober27. I think Bones is good at "faking" being normal. When she gets the pointers from Angela, they tell her what would be good here or there. Perhaps although she can fake being normal, she genuinely doesn't because those things don't seem important to her.

I thought the poll was biased. Five seasons of Bones vs. Two seasons of Castle. Sure, the ratings are about on par now, but what were Bones' ratings during its second season? However, if we compared the 2nd seasons together, Bones would come up on top hands down- nothing beats the Gravedigger episode. In fact, it's almost like Bones peaked too early. Now I just watch hoping we can get back to that sweet spot. :(

As someone mentioned ice cream before, it is hard to choose. Castle is almost a comedy to Bones. It may explain why Castle isn't so full-fleshed (yet) on Bones, but is able to pull in early laughs (for people who are afraid of committing to dramas). Bones has taken time to develop, but the whole world is rich, which is a payoff to those who stuck around.

Even though they look the same, I think they operate totally different.

Sure, the ratings are about on par now, but what were Bones' ratings during its second season?


Bones' ratings have always fluctuated a lot. During its second season it got up to 12.57 million but had episodes as low as 8 million.

I personally like Bones more because it has more character stuff. Castle only ever feels like a standard cop procedural with faint strokes of character development.
To me they're essentially the same show. Comedic quasi-procedurals that are very dependent on the dynamic between the lead characters. Fun, but not shows I get too attached to other than wanting to see David and Nathan every week.

Yep, this. WhS.

I'd miss them both if they went but it'd be very much "Oh, pity." and then moving on. And I must admit the much vaunted "character stuff" on 'Bones' sometimes strikes me as very forced and unrealistic, as if the creators know their show is "about characters" and so have to squeeze a lot of moments in whether they fit or not (Hodgins and Angela's split didn't ring true as an example. Then there's Bones' dad being a bit of a murdering nutter and this apparently being A-OK with more or less everyone on the show. Nevermind the travesty that was Zach-gate. OK, it's not "Zach-gate" yet - AFAIK - but with the help of just a few thousand people willing to coin a forced neologism all over the internet it so easily could be ;).

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home