# Bones 4/1/10 "Bones on a Blue Line"



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Holy crap, they actually came up with a plausible explanation for how a woman who displays no understanding whatsoever of basic human behavior can write characters who can appeal to a mass audience!


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

This was an awful episode, from beginning to end. Worse yet, as far as I'm concerned, there are clear signs of FOX meddling with the show, and right now I am so very close to completely giving up on it.

Let's deal with the most glaring issue: the product placement. Ridiculous. They've been doing it for weeks, and it's awful. There are good ways, acceptable ways, and bad ways of doing it. _Chuck_ demonstrates multiple ways of doing it well - the in-show placement is usually subtle, but even when it's not it doesn't drag the show to a screeching halt. And the out-of-show use of characters from the show is extremely novel and works extremely well. As for acceptable, that would be _Leverage_... their tight shots of the car logo are obvious, but it's brief and doesn't take up an undue amount of time.

This show is doing it all wrong. It sticks out like a sore thumb... it isn't integrated into the story at all, it doesn't feel natural, it doesn't work. It doesn't leave the viewer with a positive feeling about the product, and doesn't leave them wanting to learn more. It just leaves the viewer feeling like they've just been sucker-punched. The entire show stops while an actor rattles off these lines that are clearly scripted not by the show writers, but by some ad exec for the product. Even the actors seem to me to have this guilty look on their faces, as if to say "really, we're sorry for this, it's not our fault!" It's awful, awful, awful stuff. FOX: STOP IT. STOP IT NOW.

Ok, I'll step off that soapbox. 

Ok, the other really glaring thing: the subway scene. Come on... we can clearly tell that is the "Earthquake!" attraction at Universal Studios. I mean, there wasn't even a slight attempt to disguise it... the "subway" (tram) cars, the water pouring, everything. It was silly, and took me completely out of the story right from the beginning... and the worst part is that it felt superfluous. There were probably 6 better, more realistic ways they could have introduced the episode, but yet they went with the "Earthquake!" attraction, almost as if they were told "Here, you have to use the attraction in some way. Now write an episode around it."

Brennan's book... it's almost as if they went "huh, well if _Castle_ can steal a few ideas from us, we're going to steal back the idea of featuring a main character writing a book." It became quite corny when Brennan's main character was named Dr. Kathy Reichs... then proceeded to repeat the name about 30 times (at least) with absolutely no subtlety, as if the audience wasn't already aware that _Bones_ is based on a book series by Dr. Kathy Reichs.

(As an aside, I really hope they don't decide to also copy _Castle_ and actually hire a ghost writer to produce a "real" Temperance Brennan book. At this point, there are the original Reichs books, there are _Bones_ TV tie-in books... if they actually produce a "Temperance Brennan" written book, that would just be ridiculous. I don't know that they are, but with as heavily as they featured the fake book this week, I wouldn't put it past them.)

Now, the meddling I referred to. There were so, SO many moments during this episode that a character had to stop and state the obvious, as if FOX had felt that even the not particularly complex script would confuse the viewers. I was muttering, "What is this, _Blue's Clues_?" For example, they show a shot of what is clearly a rat's nest, with rats crawling in and out of it... yet a character has to exclaim "Oooh, that's a rat's nest!!!" Thanks, we can see that. This is the latest iteration of FOX underestimating the audience... this is also the same show that has in past episodes had FOX stopping the show at the midpoint and reminding viewers what just happened, so I'm pretty sure it's not just sloppy writing.

I could go on and on... the acting seemed more wooden than a high school drama club production, and the chemistry between the characters seemed so off it was almost as if they were complete strangers. There was no fun to the writing, no spark, no nothing.

Right know, it's almost as if _Castle_ has managed to take all the stuff that _Bones_ used to do well... and do them even better, and I'm thinking my time would be better spent watching that show, and not this one.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Please, you act like Bones was a masterpiece to begin with.
I couldn't take it seriously when in the first two minutes of the pilot, Angela flashed that ticket agent.

I've been treating this as a strictly "turn off your brain" show since then although any respect I might have had for the characters (or the writing) disappeared between the way they had Temperance help get her father out of the murder charge and Zach as Gormagon's apprentice.

Bones was never "high art".

The only real reason I stick around is for David Boreanaz (and I admit, I did find it funny the time Bones caught him reading Green Lantern).


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Huh, I'm trying to recall the product placement you were offended by, but I cannot. Perhaps it got me subliminally. If you tell me the product, I'll tell you if I have an unexplained desire for it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Huh, I'm trying to recall the product placement you were offended by, but I cannot. Perhaps it got me subliminally. If you tell me the product, I'll tell you if I have an unexplained desire for it.


Toyota Sienna.

The "explanation" of why Angela was driving one is what Loadstar was referring to.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Ah, now I remember the scene. It seemed a trivial discussion and did not affect me, positively or negatively (obviously, since I forgot about it).

I had no idea that the water main break was filmed on an amusement park set, which is not surprising since I have never seen any such exhibit at an amusement park.

As for the rest of the show, I was bored by the Sweets plot, as well as by the Japanese lady. But I enjoyed the main plot about the murder with the blue disintegrating bullets. Except, the bullet did not work as it was supposed to, since it went through the victim and still had enough energy to cause a powerful explosion of glass particles.


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

And the victim was shot while standing in front of a subway tunnel wall, where there was no glass to be seen...or did I miss something?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Please, you act like Bones was a masterpiece to begin with.
> I couldn't take it seriously when in the first two minutes of the pilot, Angela flashed that ticket agent.


I'll admit the show started off quite rough. There were many clunkers during the first season, and Brennan specifically was quite badly written. ("I don't know what that means.") By the second season, it had recovered quite well. It was fairly well written, there was nice chemistry between all of the characters, it was firing on all cylinders.

This was in many ways worse than first season.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I didn't notice the product placement either, and agree it's not a show worth scrutinizing too closely. It's lite entertainment.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> I didn't notice the product placement either, and agree it's not a show worth scrutinizing too closely. It's lite entertainment.


Yeah, the only thing that really bugged me was the wild disparity between Bones' social skills and the level of social skills necessary to write bestselling novels...which, as I said in the OP, I am stunned to see that they plausibly addressed!

Now, I still don't buy the character (her level of social skills can still vary pretty widely based on the needs of the script), but at least now it's reduced to dumb goofy fun from intelligence-insulting idiocy.

(The other think that really bugged me was the Zack fiasco, but they pretty much pretend he never existed, so I guess I'll forgive them for that one.)


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

The product placement in Chuck is a bit worse. The Toyota thing made me roll my eyes for a moment but the dialogue quickly moved on.

This was never a "good" show but now its losing its entertainment value. This episode was better than the last few however.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> (The other think that really bugged me was the Zack fiasco, but they pretty much pretend he never existed, so I guess I'll forgive them for that one.)


Oh, I'll never forgive them for that.... it was stupid, stupid, stupid.
I swore I would stop watching because of it but they've sucked me back in.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Let's deal with the most glaring issue: the product placement. Ridiculous. They've been doing it for weeks, and it's awful. There are good ways, acceptable ways, and bad ways of doing it.


Yeah, that was bad. And the worst part was they could have had nearly the same placement without it being so clunky. Switch it to the two of them getting into the van (with a leverage style view of the Toyota badge), and first seeing the van gives a natural 'mini-van person' opening so the size thing for angela's art supplies makes sense, the a (much shorter) mention of the backup cam wouldn't be out of place. "Great for art supplies and I love having a backup cam".

It still would have been an extranious placement scene, but at least there'd be movement and it would be quite so blatent.



LoadStar said:


> Ok, the other really glaring thing: the subway scene. Come on... we can clearly tell that is the "Earthquake!" attraction at Universal Studios. I mean, there wasn't even a slight attempt to disguise it... the "subway" (tram) cars, the water pouring, everything. It was silly, and took me completely out of the story right from the beginning...


That actually bugged me more that the product placement. I didn't realize it was the "Earthquake" attracktion, but it wasn't anything like the DC metro. (Nothing, not even the tacked on signage, was even close to correct)

And of course it was ultimately pointless. The earthquake was nothing more than a way to turn up the victem. (And to tramatize Sweets) but any number of things could have done the same without being so painfully bad. The earthquake had no further impact on the case.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Thom said:


> And the victim was shot while standing in front of a subway tunnel wall, where there was no glass to be seen...or did I miss something?


I don't recall actually seeing it in the photo, but they more or less said he was standing in front of a (glass) tunnel light fixture and that's where the shards came from.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

anyone get a clear picture on how much $$ was on the check she gave Angela?

Or am I thinking of another show I saw last night ( Human Target) where a check was shown?


----------



## thebigmo (Feb 12, 2005)

I almost had to stop watching this one because Sweets' girlfriend/fiance has got to be the most irritating character on television right now. HATE her!


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> anyone get a clear picture on how much $$ was on the check she gave Angela?
> 
> Or am I thinking of another show I saw last night ( Human Target) where a check was shown?


They showed the check, but I didn't see any shot where you'd have had a chance at reading its value.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

And what was Hodgins move on page 187?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> And what was Hodgins move on page 187?


Venus butterfly?


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> anyone get a clear picture on how much $$ was on the check she gave Angela?
> 
> Or am I thinking of another show I saw last night ( Human Target) where a check was shown?


In Human target (spoilers since it's for another show)


Spoiler



the CEO of Agrius wrote a check to the Dr. It was for over $300k, closer to $400k



I tried to read the check amount when Angela showed the check, but I couldn't really see.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

*sigh* I find it incredibly depressing that standards for scripted television have dropped so far that there are people that didn't even notice a car ad crop up smack dab in the middle of a scene of a television show.


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

Maybe somebody can explain to me why exactly the transit cop, or whatever she was, actually shot the blind guy? There really didn't seem to be any motive.

And the product placement was ridiculous - I fully expected Angela to let Miss Wick (soon to be Mrs. Sweets) drive so she could see how great the Sierra handles.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> Venus butterfly?


That was my guess. I was thinking at Hodgins: "That's not your thing. You stole that thing from L.A. Law 20 years ago when you were a young pup." 

And I definitely noticed the product placement ad for the Sierra.

Didn't recognize the subway from the Universal Studios ride, though.

Like the OP, I thought this was a clever explanation as to how Bones manages to write best-selling novels. Apparently she doesn't argue with Angela's suggestions like she does with practically everyone else. I wonder how her editor manages to work with her.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

TampaThunder said:


> Maybe somebody can explain to me why exactly the transit cop, or whatever she was, actually shot the blind guy? There really didn't seem to be any motive.


She got pissed off that she left her boyfriend for the blind guy's clients based on the letters that weren't real. The pawn shop owner was her real love.

So of course rather than being pissed at the guy who bought the letters, she killed the guy who wrote the letters


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

TampaThunder said:


> Maybe somebody can explain to me why exactly the transit cop, or whatever she was, actually shot the blind guy? There really didn't seem to be any motive.


Yes, that was bothering me as well. (Can't believe I forgot to mention it earlier)

Even if she's pissed that he offers this service of creating 'fake' love letters why shoot him? 
It's a wildly disproportionate response.
Now if she'd started having him harassed, or gotten a client list and started outing the other love letter purchasers to their prospective SOs, that would be believable.

But "I made a temporary change in my life because, with your assistance, somebody lied to me" doesn't seem like any reason (even in the heat of the moment) to want to kill. 
edit: If it had led to something irreversable (her loser-Ex offs himself, or marries someone else, so she can't get back with "the love of her life") then maybe, maybe, the shooting would be more believable.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

The car ad bugged me too. It was pretty obvious to me. I gave it a bit of thought at the time though. I think TV shows have been so neutered when it comes to mentioning real products that even a natural conversation would stand out. Maybe it will be a few years before we are less sensitive to seeing "real" objects described on TV and they'll fade back into the background. 
Product placements can be pretty bad. I used to read James Patterson's Alex Cross books until he became a shill for a German luxury car maker. Too distracting so I read other books now.

The earthquake was distracting as well. I knew as soon as I saw it that it was the Universal Studios ride, and I've never even been there before. I think it was supposed to be a San Francisco BART station.

Not something they did wrong, but as soon as they said the blue color came from the projectile I immediately thought "Glaser safety slug!"


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

I found myself more interested in where the Sweets/Wick storyline was heading. Even if you knew its would end up the way it did.

Also, I knew the cancer survivor in the beginning was a 'red shirt'.


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Yes, that was bothering me as well. (Can't believe I forgot to mention it earlier)
> 
> Even if she's pissed that he offers this service of creating 'fake' love letters why shoot him?
> It's a wildly disproportionate response.
> ...


Perhaps one of the biggest stretches in TV history for a motive to commit murder, and murder of a blind guy at that. Ludicrous. Might as well have had her kill the CEO of the company that manufactured the pen or computer the blind guy used to write the letters.

I hope next week's 100th episode has better writing than this.


----------



## SorenTodd (May 26, 2009)

And here I thought the product placement was the book! The mini-van thing flew right under my radar. After all, Angela explained to Daisy that she sucked at parallel parking.

But I agree with LoadStar, it was a crappy episode. The Japanese journalist was totally annoying. It should have become obvious to her that Dr. Brennan only wanted to discuss forensic anthropology, and not smut (in regards to the book).


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

SorenTodd said:


> And here I thought the product placement was the book! The mini-van thing flew right under my radar. After all, Angela explained to Daisy that she sucked at parallel parking.


But WHY did she mention that? Why was that scene even there? It's a complete non-sequitur, and that should have been glaringly obvious that the whole purpose for that scene was to promote the car, and that Angela was reading from advertising copy, not a television script.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

On the other hand, in this Brave New DVR World we live in, product placement is going to become more and more common. And if it's subtle enough that people won't notice it, then the advertisers will think they're not getting their money's worth, they'll stop buying product placements, the networks will go out of business, and we'll have nothing to watch.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> But WHY did she mention that? Why was that scene even there? It's a complete non-sequitur, and that should have been glaringly obvious that the whole purpose for that scene was to promote the car, and that Angela was reading from advertising copy, not a television script.


If it had been anyone but Angela I may have paid more attention to it but she is forever making odd references to things that have no bearing on anything.
And I don't watch it with that critical an eye to begin with- it's just a way to pass 45 minutes.

I have been asked why I drive a mini van, how I like my HHR, and why I need a truck... each question many times, in fact. Sometimes I might even answer with an off the cuff piece of advertising script.
It's not that weird to me.
Certainly not weird enough to cause me this level of angst.


----------



## gschrock (Dec 28, 2001)

Yeah, the Toyota commercial was pretty bad, I have to admit, I'm surprised anyone could miss it. About all it was missing was how much it would cost to lease it.

BTW, what's Hodgins driving anyways? I'm trying to remember if we've ever seen him driving a right hand drive vehicle before.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

The Sienna product placement was pretty obvious but like Rob said, with ad skipping the norm these days, it's something that we're going to have to live with.

As for Hodgin's car, it looked like an original Mini.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

logic88 said:


> The Sienna product placement was pretty obvious but like Rob said, with ad skipping the norm these days, it's something that we're going to have to live with.


Which is why I'm so interested in having them do it right. This wasn't done right.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Me, when I grumble about product placement, I NEVER mention the actual product. You have to know someone's crawling sites and seeing where people mention the make and model and say "look, it's working"


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Which is why I'm so interested in having them do it right. This wasn't done right.


But it sounds like what you're saying is that it's done right when you don't notice it...which is exactly when it's NOT done right.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But it sounds like what you're saying is that it's done right when you don't notice it...which is exactly when it's NOT done right.


No, when it is done right it's apparent _just enough_ to leave the viewer with a good impression of the product, or wanting to learn more about the product. It should also be at least slightly relevant to the plot of the episode, probably more key in this case.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I was trying to come up with a good example involving a hypothetical product placement for TiVo. 

What I came up with: a crime procedural show, where a critical clue is the a suspect's TV viewing habits. They show the investigators looking through the victim's TiVo listings, but discover the shows have been deleted. One investigator says, "Hang on... go back to the main menu. See what shows have been suggested, that will give us an idea of what other shows he's been watching." Through all of this, they never even have to say the word TiVo, do a blatantly close shot of the TiVo unit, anything like that. They just show the actors naturally using the TiVo peanut remote, same as anyone else, and show what is clearly an actual TiVo interface on the TV screen. The scene alone is enough to show that it's a TiVo and what it can do. It's also integrated into the plot of the episode.

Now, a bad product placement: a character is at home for no particular reason. The phone rings, and the character remarks to a colleague/friend/family member who is also there, "Man, it's a good thing I have the TiVo DVR. It lets me pause this show to answer the phone, and even suggests shows for me to watch." They then show an insert, a tight shot of the characters hand with the TiVo remote in it, and show him pausing the show. They then cut to another insert, a shot of the TV screen and the show being paused. The scene then continues.

The bad one above is blatant and has nothing to do with the episode; the whole show has to stop while they do the advertisement. The good one is more subtle, but still apparent enough to show the product and one of it's distinguishing features, and is a critical part of the episode.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The problem with your "good" example is that the advertiser would feel ripped off. The only people who are going to know it's a TiVo are people who already have a TiVo.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The problem with your "good" example is that the advertiser would feel ripped off. The only people who are going to know it's a TiVo are people who already have a TiVo.


Well, they could probably get away with a "Hey, this is a TiVo, right? Go back to see what suggestions there are..." without it being too blatant. The TiVo interface on the TV screen in the shot would also be enough to allow customers who then go to the store and look at the DVRs on display to identify it, plus there is also the TiVo logo on the menus that would still be visible in the scene, even if they don't do a tight shot of the TV screen to make it annoyingly obvious.

The point is, there is a difference between product placement and product advertisement.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I like standard product placement, like the GM vehicles in Burn Notice. "Nice car" with a shot of the logo and very brief brand mention "Yeah its a new Caddy" is as far as I like them to go.

The placement has to fit the character and situation. Angela would never drive a minivan. She'd drive a convertible.


----------



## rondotcom (Feb 13, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> I was trying to come up with a good example involving a hypothetical product placement for TiVo.
> 
> What I came up with: a crime procedural show, where a critical clue is the a suspect's TV viewing habits. They show the investigators looking through the victim's TiVo listings, but discover the shows have been deleted. One investigator says, "Hang on... go back to the main menu. See what shows have been suggested, that will give us an idea of what other shows he's been watching." Through all of this, they never even have to say the word TiVo, do a blatantly close shot of the TiVo unit, anything like that. They just show the actors naturally using the TiVo peanut remote, same as anyone else, and show what is clearly an actual TiVo interface on the TV screen. The scene alone is enough to show that it's a TiVo and what it can do. It's also integrated into the plot of the episode.
> 
> ...


Actually a great product placement for TiVo was in the new movie"The Bounty Hunter". We see a close up of the ex-wife's flatscreen and the ex-husbqnd deleting her "Now Playing" list


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Speaking of product placement. Here's a NYT piece on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/business/media/05screen.html?hp


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Show is going downhill fast. Ever since the writers strike when they ended the with Zack in jail, the shows story arcs have been really poor. The show used to be a cute entertaining, now it's aimless, boring, and annoying. Did a writer leave or something? What happened?



thebigmo said:


> I almost had to stop watching this one because Sweets' girlfriend/fiance has got to be the most irritating character on television right now. HATE her!


Every time I see my mind goes back to Californication and her nude scenes. :up: My problem with that character is that to me she is now typecast-ed (at least in *my* mind).



LoadStar said:


> Let's deal with the most glaring issue: the product placement. Ridiculous. They've been doing it for weeks, and it's awful. There are good ways, acceptable ways, and bad ways of doing it. _Chuck_ demonstrates multiple ways of doing it well - the in-show placement is usually subtle, but even when it's not it doesn't drag the show to a screeching halt. And the out-of-show use of characters from the show is extremely novel and works extremely well. As for acceptable, that would be _Leverage_... their tight shots of the car logo are obvious, but it's brief and doesn't take up an undue amount of time.


Leverage does a much better job. I actually went to Hyundai's website to look at cars not too long ago. The Sienna scene with Angela was just annoying and had nothing to do with the show.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

robojerk said:


> Show is going downhill fast. Ever since the writers strike when they ended the with Zack in jail, the shows story arcs have been really poor. The show used to be a cute entertaining, now it's aimless, boring, and annoying. Did a writer leave or something? What happened?


Boreanaz got control.
Since moving from co-producer to producer to executive producer he has taken the title seriously and little by little has increased his influence on the direction of the show. Hart Hanson is losing interest and Boreanaz is moving in and is more into the relationship than the crime of the week and procedural aspects.

I love him as Seeley Booth but hate what he has done to the show.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Cearbhaill said:


> Hart Hanson is losing interest and Boreanaz is moving in and is more into the relationship than the crime of the week and procedural aspects.


What is the source of this?


----------



## Queue (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm having such a hard time getting through this episode. Every time Daisy talks I turn it off.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

Even more product placement news. Apple inserts the iPad as the main plot line of last week's Modern Family.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...f-primetime-modern-family-becomes-ipad-ad.ars

It's definitely not subtle but is it effective?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> What is the source of this?


It's an amalgamation of Boreanaz/Hart interviews and fanwanking.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

logic88 said:


> Even more product placement news. Apple inserts the iPad as the main plot line of last week's Modern Family.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...f-primetime-modern-family-becomes-ipad-ad.ars
> 
> It's definitely not subtle but is it effective?


Ars needs to do a better job of fact checking (and rein in their bias).

The Hollywood Reporter says that it was not paid product placement.

The writers of Modern Family went to Apple about the episode.


----------



## logic88 (Jun 7, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Ars needs to do a better job of fact checking (and rein in their bias).
> 
> The Hollywood Reporter says that it was not paid product placement.
> 
> The writers of Modern Family went to Apple about the episode.


Interesting. It appears Ars goofed on this one.

I wonder if Jobs would have greenlighted this if it wasn't an ABC show.


----------



## AlphaDelta (Jan 9, 2007)

I LOL at the Sienna ad more than any other part of the story. At least it was less obnoxious than the Avatar promotion in a previous episode. I was always borderline on this series ... I think no matter what happens to this series renewal-wise, it's my last of season of Bones.


----------

