Glad to hear this. Hopefully they'll keep it on at this time. I had to stop watching it for awhile because it was on at the same time as VM and Lost and I could only tape one show.

Firefly Flanatic | March 17, 21:30 CET

You're lucky, VM doesnt come on till midnight here. Our UPN station airs on FOX after FOX's primetime lineup.

pongluver | March 17, 21:39 CET

The episode with Harry Groener aired last night here in the UK. It was good to see Angel and The Mayor face to face again. Bones is slowly growing on me.

Simon | March 17, 21:46 CET

Sadly, I didn't know about the time change until 40 minutes into the episode. But I'm glad that from now on I can watch Bones AND VM!

Rogue Slayer | March 17, 22:00 CET

I had some conserns that Bones was being thrown to the sharks by putting it up against Lost, but it appears by moving the time slot Fox actually wants it to succeed! A non-reality show that Fox supports? What a concept!

kmb99 | March 17, 22:02 CET

More specifically, a non-reality show with Whedonverse actors, which usually make Fox want to kill it that much faster. So hurrah to Bones. I'm happy to see that they're actually letting the show grow and gain more viewers.

Danica | March 17, 22:38 CET

I'm glad they got wise and moved it; putting it up against "Lost" and "Veronica Mars" (and "American Idol," too?) could have been a death knell.

And it was cool to see James Baldwin with David Boreanaz again!

Gaudior | March 17, 22:51 CET

Gaudior - Adam Baldwin, you mean? And, yes, the last episode of Bones was not so bad, so far as TV in general has been going.

Genia | March 17, 23:31 CET

Well, I've actually abandoned LOST in favor of Bones, although the time change also caught me by surprise.

And hooray for seeing AB on my tv again!

cronopio | March 18, 00:14 CET

Great role for Adam, too! (If you haven't seen the episode yet, you'll love it!) ;-)

Add me to the list of people grateful that I don't have to give up VM or Lost. Even though I'm losing interest in Lost fast, I haven't given up on it altogether yet. But VM still *rocks*! ;-)

billz | March 18, 00:35 CET

"Bones" and "Lost" will become the dream drama lineup on Wednesdays, folowed by "Invasion" for some. As for VM, since it's likely WBUPN, or the CW, will add both her and maybe Gilmore Girls this fall, I picture VM doing Tuesdays at 9 PM.
As for the episode, I heard a lot about Brennan and Booth make serious attempts as being the geekiest dancers this side of a vampire with a soul. I wonder if the writing staff like to add a lot of "Angel" references. It was also nice of Fox to reopen the restaurant that was the center of "Kitchen Confidental" for one night.

impalergeneral | March 18, 00:46 CET

Oh boy. Now Bones is part of a ''dream lineup''? This truly speaks to the state of television right now. I just can't agree with all you lovely people. I keep hearing phrases like "finding its niche"... and "improving every week...". That doesn't sound too impressive for how it's performing at the moment.

Glad for DB that he's looking more successful, but in my opinion, Bones is a dull, boring, connect-the-dots show.

We need Joss. Failing that, Milch or Sorkin. Right now.

Willowy | March 18, 01:32 CET

I come down somewhere between impalergeneral and Willowy. I watch Bones regularly and enjoy it well enough (DB's great and ED is, I think, even better). I think the show has its flaws (uneven writing), it's not one of my favorites, but the bottom line is I enjoy it.

(Fear not, Willowy, Sorkin is coming...)

jam2 | March 18, 01:42 CET

impalergeneral, according to a story in the L.A. Times this morning, Gilmore Girls has been confirmed as a CW show but Veronica Mars has not. It's competing with a bunch of other existing shows, as well as a half-dozen pilots, for the 6 1/2 hours of remaining schedule time. GG and VM would be my Tuesday night dream schedule, too, but I'm afraid it will likely remain a dream.

I watched Bones this week. It was enjoyable but so far not addicting.

dreamlogic | March 18, 02:16 CET

You don't watch Bones for the plot. You watch for the characters and their interactions. Which are great, IMO.

(Gaudior: Bones can't exactly go up against American Idol, since they're on the same network.)

I think the idea of the previous slot was to use AI as a leadin.

KernelM | March 18, 02:18 CET

"Oh boy. Now Bones is part of a ''dream lineup''? This truly speaks to the state of television right now. I just can't agree with all you lovely people. I keep hearing phrases like "finding its niche"... and "improving every week...". That doesn't sound too impressive for how it's performing at the moment. "

Willowy, not sure I'm following what you're saying here? The show is doing well, even came out ahead of CBS (not sure what was on that station)...as for shows hitting their stride, not too many come out of the gate without a few wrinkles that need ironing out, despite the fact networks barely give shows a chance to do so. I didn't start watching Buffy until it's second season, if I'd have seen if in season one I'd have never stuck with it. Face it, it was pretty damn cheesy. BUT, it grew into something pretty damn cool so I guess I'm not seeing those catch phrases as being especially horrible. I think it's pretty cool it's doing that well even after already being thrown all over the time slot map.

I enjoy the show. I don't watch too much stuff that's out there, but this one is a regular. While they can't all be a "Whedon" show, I certainly don't feel like I'm settling by watching this one.

[ edited by Grace on 2006-03-18 00:34 ]

Grace | March 18, 02:29 CET

to dreamlogic,
VM should be part of the CW, or at least be on CBS. I'd rather have her than "CSI:Miami."
As for "Bones", I think the squints (Angela, Zack and Hodgins) are coming into their own on the show. I'd like to see an epiosde that centers on any of them. Aside from that, I'd watch that show along with "Lost".

impalergeneral | March 18, 03:01 CET

"You don't watch Bones for the plot."

Couldn't have said it better myself but i'd have followed it up with "... or to be remotely entertained."

I'm absolutely with Willowy here. Sorry to the guys that seem to enjoy it but i think this show is total rubbish. With all due respect to David and Emily (who, by the way, i think is very hot) Bones is a by the numbers, way too easy to follow, requiring little or no thought, unremarkable and unimaginative show that i forget about within minutes of the show ending. In fact, if it wasn't for a sense of loyalty to David i wouldn't still be watching. Well, that and the hotness of Emily.

The character interaction that has been mentioned here is far from unique and the characters are just too stereotypical for words, with the possible exception of Bones herself. Worse still, the storylines are way too predictable. Be honest, has anyone been surprised in any way by the outcome of an episode yet? At all?

Nope, on a scale of 1 to 10 i give Bones a 3, and i'm being generous with that.

Woah, think i started channeling Simon Cowell for a second there.

The Watcher | March 18, 03:31 CET

Grace, to me it's just damning with faint praise. I don't think those remarks are "horrible", either, just... well if that's the best they can do? Not so much with the stellar reviews, you know? Is my meaning more clear?

As to your remark that most shows don't come out of the gate without a few wrinkles? Firefly did.

Not picking on you at all, and if you enjoy it, I'm glad for you. It also appears that there are many that agree with you. It's just that I don't. :)

And jam2, yes thank goodness. Something to look forward to.

Willowy | March 18, 03:47 CET

I don't understand why Bones is always taking out the highly trained/stronger/more capable villains with a few well-placed blows. I mean...come on, no way could she take Adam Baldwin. He was a freakin' FBI agent!!

Rogue Slayer | March 18, 03:55 CET

Actually, the Adam Baldwin episode is the only episode of Bones I've enjoyed so far, and that was because of AB. Yay DB for having a steady gig, yay for the many 'Verse shout-outs on the show, and big yay for what Hart Hanson had said in an interview in January, but I agree with the people who are saying that neither the plots or the characters are anything new. I'll watch the show now that it's not on against anything else I am particularly interested in, but it's not "Must See TV" for me. Sorry. :-(

billz | March 18, 04:03 CET

Regarding the relative standard of the season one episodes of Buffy to what we got later on from the show, personally i was hooked right from the start with Buffy, despite the fact that it wasn't as great as it was later to become.

Whilst BtVS's first season was far from being perfect it already had the clear signs of the greatness to follow. Interesting characters that you saw as something fresh and new. Witty, intelligent dialogue that didn't seem forced or in anyway untrue to the characters. A real sense of importance to the events of each episode, even the standalones to a point but especially to the Master arc episodes. Most importantly though, Buffy had originality. It was totally unique in what it was, despite the fact it still had a way to go before it hit the heights we became accustomed to.

In my opinion, Bones has none of these things going for it and most especially not originality. It will suit those that like that kind of bland, going nowhere type of detective television but it will never reach the kind of uniqueness or quality that Buffy or Angel had from the start.

The Watcher | March 18, 04:05 CET

Gee, thanks.

KernelM | March 18, 04:09 CET

"Gee, thanks."

That's okay. Anytime.

Hehe, sorry if i offended you there, KernelM, that wasn't the intent but i do honestly believe that these type of shows are bland and do nothing to stimulate the mind whatsoever. If you enjoy them then fine, it will suit you as it clearly does many others going off the ratings. For me though, not so much.

The Watcher | March 18, 04:14 CET

Thanks for the correction; I knew James Baldwin didn't sound right, but I couldn't think of what did (and I was too lazy to check on IMDB). Whoa, did I just fuse Adam Baldwin and James Marsters!?!?

And, yeah, it can't go up against "American Idol"; duh on me. I think I was surprised to realize AI was up against "Lost" (of the incessant reruns) and VM.

I watch Bones, but not particularly regularly; I find it pretty predictable, and I get very annoyed with Bones' character writing a novel that's on the NY Times Bestseller list and not knowing anything about popular culture (though some of the references I've wondered at, too). I do think it's getting better, though, as the characters develop a bit.

Gaudior | March 18, 04:27 CET

"Whilst BtVS's first season was far from being perfect it already had the clear signs of the greatness to follow. Interesting characters that you saw as something fresh and new. Witty, intelligent dialogue that didn't seem forced or in anyway untrue to the characters. A real sense of importance to the events of each episode, even the standalones to a point but especially to the Master arc episodes. Most importantly though, Buffy had originality. It was totally unique in what it was, despite the fact it still had a way to go before it hit the heights we became accustomed to."

Demonic, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. You put my exact thoughts/feelings down, and I wish I'd've been the one to post this.

Huzzah!

Willowy | March 18, 04:37 CET

I can understand those that don't like "Bones" - if David B. wasn't on it I wouldn't have watched more than one episode. But it has been growing on me, and I think that the writing is getting better. And color me shocked that it actually WON its timeslot in the ratings. As for timeslots, this is its third time slot in less than a season. I like the new one much better than 9PM on Wednesday, but preferred it on Tuesday. I don't have any other bland shows to watch then (*snicker* - just kidding Demonic).

Having admitted that I do like the show, I agree that it has problems, is a little too formulaic, and at times falls into being yet another forensics show. My hope is that over time that the supporting characters continue to be built up and that they would highlight Temperance's anthropological and genocide investigations instead of the same old crime stories. That would be unique.

And on to Adam Baldwin - I hadn't realized he was on the episode until he appeared. It was great seeing him, but I guessed the ending at about the halfway point (see all of our comments about the writing). Based on that assumption, Adam's performance sort of died for me after that point. Too bad that his character can't reappear - he could have added a regular FBI "pal" to the supporting cast for Booth.

Kyrax | March 18, 04:44 CET

"I don't have any other bland shows to watch then (*snicker* - just kidding Demonic)."

S'okay, you weren't kidding at all. The show really is bland, hehe.

The Watcher | March 18, 05:03 CET

he could have added a regular FBI "pal" to the supporting cast for Booth.

I was thinking the same thing, Kyrax! It would have been nice for Booth to have an ally who has an "FBI mind" to pop up here and there to contrast with the "squints." Of course, since Adam has a new pilot, maybe he wouldn't have had time for a recurring role anyway! ;-)

billz | March 18, 05:09 CET

The time change is bound to help Bones, because there is absolutely nothing worthwhile on at the same time. That said, this show is, as others have said, totally predictable and poorly written. I have caught it several times, and I really don't see much improvement. The actors do seem more comfortable with their characters, I'll give you that, but the entire ensemble deserves much better. And AB was totally wasted in his guest role.

palehorse | March 18, 05:26 CET

Well, I like Bones but I'd give it up in a heart beat if it meant getting a new Whedon show. Bones is entertaining and the characters are interesting but the plot, every time I've seen it, has been weak and full of holes. I do like the chemistry between DB and ED though. And it's been fun seeing DB play a different role.

Firefly Flanatic | March 18, 06:09 CET

I started watching Bones only for DB, and that is the reason why I am still watching it. I look at it as a guilty pleasure.

Firefly Flanatic says And it's been fun seeing DB play a different role. Although there are times when I just yearn for his face to morph and for Angel to appear *sigh*

The writing will never get close to anything produced by Whedon/Minear, but every now and then it has its 'moments' (usually humour) and the last episode with Adam Baldwin was the best to date.

The Do That Girl | March 18, 15:44 CET

I'm chiming in on season 1 of Buffy. I watched Buffy from the first epsiode and made a point of being home to watch it every night since then. Demonic said it so perfectly in the post above. The writing of Buffy caught my interest right away, and truthfully DB caught my interest too. Before Buffy I was watching X Files but was losing interest in it, Buffy was my new favorite show from day 1...and it stayed #1 for me for all 7 seasons.

Passion | March 18, 16:01 CET

"As to your remark that most shows don't come out of the gate without a few wrinkles? Firefly did."

Hmm. Perhaps that isn't the best example, since the show got cancelled mid-season? Shoot me, but I admit, when Firefly first aired, I only watched about 4 episodes. I just couldn't get into it at the time. My hubby watched them all, loved the show, but even he admits it needed some work.

I guess all I'm saying is Bones has made it past mid-season and has some ratings of note. I imagine we'll know before long if it makes it to season 2. I for one, hope it gets renewed. I'd like to see how the show can evolve.

Grace | March 18, 17:12 CET

Oh, Bones will get renewed. Absolutely no doubt about that. It is just the type of average, safe show that networks like Fox adore because they bring in steady and decent viewing figures and are sufficiently lacking in continuity and character growth that they can be repeated in any old order, as and when the network feels like it, and still make sense to the casual viewer.

I just don't think saying that a show has made it past mid-season and has decent ratings is any indication of quality. Charmed made it to eight seasons. Nuff said.

The Watcher | March 18, 19:37 CET

Most shows don't come out of the gate without a few wrinkles. We might all find examples of shows that did know what they were doing right away (Firefly, Twin Peaks, Homicide, Arrested Development for mine...), but I think most series build to greatness. And most series aren't given that time anymore. (Firefly getting 15 episodes on the air on a network that didn't like the show is like a miracle these days!)

Buffy's pilot is marvellous work and the first season has a couple of other great episodes - but it didn't hit its stride or heights until late season two. The suggestion that it was always imbued with greatness is, I think, rose-coloured glasses...

The first episode I ever saw was "Prophecy Girl" which was great and remains one of the series' best hours. It made me want to see more. But I always wonder, what if the first episode I saw was The Witch or I Robot... You Jane or The Puppet Show - all of which are amusing but not great.

I haven't seen any of Bones (haven't really heard anything good about it) but there should definitely be some room given to a show to allow for improvement - but sadly that's not always possible or practical.

crossoverman | March 19, 14:19 CET

"The suggestion that it was always imbued with greatness is, I think, rose-coloured glasses..."

Only just seen this comment so i'm a little late with a response but what the hell.

I don't think it is a case of "rose-coloured glasses" in the least and i don't think anyone who didn't actually watch from episode one onwards can say that with any degree of truth.

Starting from Prophecy Girl means that you start from an episode that had already hit it's stride. The final episode of season one was arguably the first that showed the real potential of the series for continuity and the larger story arcs that it became famous for but starting from that episode also means that you start from the high ground.

I was one of those lucky people that watched from Welcome to the Hellmouth, not missing an episode right through to Chosen. I saw every minute, from start to finish, in the right order. Now, if i'd started later on, say in season three or even just with Prophecy Girl, then i might have eventually gone back and watched the earlier episodes thinking "Okay, kinda lame but still pretty good". In fact i'll gladly admit that some early season one episodes (Teacher's Pet springs to mind) are actually quite poor, but then i didn't think much of season six's Life Serial either. Personal tastes and all that.

That doesn't take away the fact that Buffy as a show was always showing signs of the greatness it had to come though. The fact is that i was hooked from episode one. After i had seen WttH there was never a question that i wasn't going to watch every episode that followed, whether it lasted a season or, as it happened, seven.

The show always had a spark, right from the start, and i think that unless you were able to watch it start to finish some of the charm of those early episodes is going to be lost in the comparison to what you saw later on.

End of the day though, i clearly remember the pleasure i had in watching that first season the first time through because it was the first television series that ever made me come back every single week for more and i can promise anyone who came in later that the magic was always there, in more ways than one.

The Watcher | March 21, 15:13 CET