New Shows POLL - Bones & JUSTICE Premiering on 08/30
Ian J. Ball
* No, Alan's still not dead - instead, he can be found
inhabiting here: http://www.nj.com/tv/ledger/
P.S. Yes, I'm posting this early. Partly as a reminder.
Please save comments until *after* you've seen the show!
P.P.S. Yes, I know I'd didn't poll on "Duets" last nite - did
you really expect me to!?!!
One returning series and one new series have their premieres tonight
(08/30/06). The returning series is:
"Bones" (FOX)
The new series is:
"JUSTICE" (FOX)
So, what did you think?
All comments welcome; grades are good (letter grades preferred).
--
"Read less. More TV." - Dr. Greg House, "House"
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/TV-Blog/
David
<ijball***NO-SPAM***@mac.com.invalid> wrote:
>The ALAN SEPINWALL Memorial* New Shows Poll:
>
>* No, Alan's still not dead - instead, he can be found
> inhabiting here: http://www.nj.com/tv/ledger/
>
>P.S. Yes, I'm posting this early. Partly as a reminder.
> Please save comments until *after* you've seen the show!
>
>P.P.S. Yes, I know I'd didn't poll on "Duets" last nite - did
> you really expect me to!?!!
I assumed that it was taking you days to recover from "24" winning
best drama.
>One returning series and one new series have their premieres tonight
>(08/30/06). The returning series is:
>
>"Bones" (FOX)
Get thee to Friday, pageantry of atrociousness!!!
>The new series is:
>
>"JUSTICE" (FOX)
Surprisingly good. I thought it'd be the same old cynical commentary
on slick lawyers with rich clients twisting the justice system in this
media age, with a Bruckheimeresque gimmick thrown in, and it kinda
was. But it had some interesting looks at the thought processes of
lawyers on both sides, it's loads involving, and there's a superb
moment where the tide turns. Forget James Woods, go with Victor
Garber. Grade: B+
William December Starr
"Ian J. Ball" <ijball***NO-SPAM***@mac.com.invalid> said:
> All comments welcome; grades are good (letter grades preferred).
> "Bones" (FOX)
C-. Very badly done: they tried to stuff three separate, large
story elements into one show:
o The case of the week, with all its technical details and twists
and turns,
o The introduction of new major regular character (even though the
actress is credited as a guest star... what is she, Jonathan
Harris?) who has a past with one of the top two characters, and
o Bringing the audience up to speed on -- and not only that but
also *advancing* -- the convoluted story of Temperance's family,
the missing father, etc.,
...and that was at least one too many for this writing squad to
integrate into 42 minutes.
> "JUSTICE" (FOX)
A. I liked it a lot. And I know I shouldn't have. But I did.
Good job of introducing the (mercifully small) team of regulars, and
they made me root for them and the defendant even though I fully
expecting the promised "What really happened" flashback at the end
of the episode to show that he'd actually done it. The
near-hyperspeed at which the story was told was good too. (I
wouldn't want every show to use it, but here it worked for me.)
The only weakness, I thought, was the expert witness they used -- I
can't believe that they would have left until now the job of either
making this geek trial-ready or finding a better one. (Though I
liked the geek.) Oh, that and the absurd dramatic pauses in the
reading of the verdict: "We the jury ... ... ... ... find the
defendant ... ... ... ... [spoiler]."
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Anim8rFSK
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <ijball***NO-SPAM***-0A5967.124...@news1.ucsd.edu>,
> "Ian J. Ball" <ijball***NO-SPAM***@mac.com.invalid> said:
>
> > All comments welcome; grades are good (letter grades preferred).
>
> > "Bones" (FOX)
>
> C-. Very badly done: they tried to stuff three separate, large
> story elements into one show:
>
> o The case of the week, with all its technical details and twists
> and turns,
I'm still not clear on why they tossed the guy out of the car, which
seemed to defeat the original plan, or the incredible coincidence that
they just HAPPENED to find a dead junkie who's 6'7" tall???? I'd have
liked it WAY better if they'd staked him out and killed him.
>
> o The introduction of new major regular character (even though the
> actress is credited as a guest star... what is she, Jonathan
> Harris?) who has a past with one of the top two characters, and
Apparently she won't be in every episode, and the old boss will be back
some. Forcing in her possible romantic past with Angel seemed a bit
much though. I did like that the incompetent lady DA even looked like
the incompetent Denver lady DA we've been seeing so much of. I'm amazed
some suit didn't make them make the incompetent character a white male.
>
> o Bringing the audience up to speed on -- and not only that but
> also *advancing* -- the convoluted story of Temperance's family,
> the missing father, etc.,
Which they could have skipped, as it didn't go anywhere.
>
> ...and that was at least one too many for this writing squad to
> integrate into 42 minutes.
I really really really disliked Bones being incredibly rude to the
firefighter at the start.
Callen Molenda
news:ANIM8Rfsk-CF920...@news.west.cox.net...
We were gnashing our teeth at missing it - Ernesto's predecessors started
hitting last night and knocked out our satellite - but sounds like I won't
be suffering too much over missing the premiere.
Callen in VA
Anim8rFSK
"Callen Molenda" <callen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Okay, it wasn't AWFUL -- it just should have been better, especially
being, what, the very first show of the new season?
New boss is an appealing character (except for one incredibly stupid
scene when she told them they couldn't perform ANY experiment without
permission from her without getting fired, which means they pretty much
aren't going to be able to do ANYTHING without a note (and they aren't
allowed to get permission from their immediate supervisor, Bones), and
unless she's on hand for them 24/7, the department comes to a stop --
and her first warning was really nasty, like they should have known
about this incredibly stupid rule without her telling them) and she's
hot, which for me at least, is good. :-D
She was so familiar I had to look her up; she was Walt's mother on LOST.
Bones was apparently incredibly rude to a firefighter doing his job to
reinforce to the audience that she has no people skills, but come on . .
.
ravenlynne
> One returning series and one new series have their premieres tonight
> (08/30/06). The returning series is:
>
> "Bones" (FOX)
>
> The new series is:
>
> "JUSTICE" (FOX)
>
>
> So, what did you think?
>
> All comments welcome; grades are good (letter grades preferred).
>
I liked Bones ok, I'll give it a C.. The interactions with the new boss
were mildly entertaining, but I got bored quickly. I give Justice a
B+...I enjoyed it but not sure I'll remain interested.
William December Starr
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> said:
[ re the plot of the "Bones" season premiere ]
> I'm still not clear on why they tossed the guy out of the car,
> which seemed to defeat the original plan,
The original plan didn't involve three murders[1], one of them a
U.S. Senator. There were only two people in on the plot -- Warren
Lynch and the sleazy private investigator -- and I think that when
the risks if they were caught went way up, the latter decided to
implement the old "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is
dead" strategy. Whether he threw Lynch out of the car or Lynch,
already suffering a head injury, jumped out trying to escape while
being taken to the place where the P.I. planned on killing him, who
knows.
1: I don't _know_ but am assuming that federal law has a
"depraved indifference to human life, leading to death" category
of murder, and parking four thousand pounds of car on a railroad
track knowing that a high speed train will be coming along almost
certainly qualifies.
> or the incredible coincidence that they just HAPPENED to find a
> dead junkie who's 6'7" tall???? I'd have liked it WAY better if
> they'd staked him out and killed him.
Yeah, that was pushing it. I can understand that they'd already
picked this one particular junkie out in advance as their dead-body
stand-in[2] but how long were they going to keep him under
surveillance waiting for him to die?
2: And had under some premise gotten him to a dentist, so as to
obtain the dental x-rays they need for their scam to work.
Anim8rFSK
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-CF920...@news.west.cox.net>,
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> said:
>
> [ re the plot of the "Bones" season premiere ]
>
> > I'm still not clear on why they tossed the guy out of the car,
> > which seemed to defeat the original plan,
>
> The original plan didn't involve three murders[1], one of them a
> U.S. Senator. There were only two people in on the plot -- Warren
> Lynch and the sleazy private investigator -- and I think that when
> the risks if they were caught went way up, the latter decided to
> implement the old "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is
> dead" strategy. Whether he threw Lynch out of the car or Lynch,
> already suffering a head injury, jumped out trying to escape while
> being taken to the place where the P.I. planned on killing him, who
> knows.
If he pushed Lynch out of the car, I'd have hoped he'd have done it
someplace the guy wouldn't be FOUND for a couple of days.
>
> 1: I don't _know_ but am assuming that federal law has a
> "depraved indifference to human life, leading to death" category
> of murder, and parking four thousand pounds of car on a railroad
> track knowing that a high speed train will be coming along almost
> certainly qualifies.
>
> > or the incredible coincidence that they just HAPPENED to find a
> > dead junkie who's 6'7" tall???? I'd have liked it WAY better if
> > they'd staked him out and killed him.
>
> Yeah, that was pushing it. I can understand that they'd already
> picked this one particular junkie out in advance as their dead-body
> stand-in[2] but how long were they going to keep him under
> surveillance waiting for him to die?
Or did they poison the drugs themselves?
>
> 2: And had under some premise gotten him to a dentist, so as to
> obtain the dental x-rays they need for their scam to work.
Yeah. That had problems. They needed a full set of x-rays on this guy,
and they better hope he's not missing a front tooth or has a gold cap or
something. This certainly means there must be more people in on the
plot.
~consul
> [ re the plot of the "Bones" season premiere of a guy who left a ?dead? body on the train tracks]
> 1: I don't _know_ but am assuming that federal law has a
> "depraved indifference to human life, leading to death" category
> of murder, and parking four thousand pounds of car on a railroad
> track knowing that a high speed train will be coming along almost
> certainly qualifies.
In Los Angeles, Juan Manuel Alvarez, was charged or is being charged with 11 counts of
murder with 'special circumstances' or 'intent'. The dude even poured gas on the SUV to
make a stronger fire.
Messing on or around the train tracks with a vehicle is a misdemeanor, according to
California Penal Code 6208.
(b) Any person who rides, drives, or propels any vehicle upon and along the track of any
railline owned or operated by a county transportation commission or transportation
authority without the authorization of the commission or authority is guilty of a
misdemeanor. 369h. <http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/6208.html>
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>