Mayhem on the Cross – SHOW DISCUSSION

Shelly wrote:I had alot of mixed feelings about this episode. In trying to come up with a general phrase to sum it up, I can only think of "lack of focus." I didn't find it nearly as clean, flowing, and well put together as wednesday's episode, and some stuff really rubbed me the wrong way.

First off, while I truely adore the character of Gordon, Gordon, he served no real purpose in this episode other than his omniscient commentary on Booth and Bones' relationship. I know it was only one episode, but still...Gordon, and Sweets, AND Booth all in the interrogation room, all postulating theories about criminal behaviour is just more psychobabble for one episode than I can stomach. It felt like they were constantly getting in the way of each other. It was overkill. I mean, as much as I LOVE Sweets, cuz I do, he isn't really a functional character outside of brilliant comic relief. Booth has gifted insight into the human psyche and does very well on his own. Then with Gordon added to the mix, it was just too many peas in the pod. Not to mention I HATE when the writers use static, shallow, psychological theory to tell us about Booth and Bones' relationship. Booth and Bones do a great job of that on their own through interaction and experience. Anyone who has written ANYTHING of fiction I'm sure has heard the phrase "show, don't tell." You would think the writers of an insanely popular T.V. show would have heard it somewhere along the line. And what is the deal with Sweet's book title? When will we get to SEE the conflict and controversy of Booth and Brennan's relationship through action like it used to be, instead of having it defined for us through 3rd party observation or written in a book?

I'm also getting tired of Booth being out of comission for no reason that I can see. What was the point of desking him half way through the episode? It served no purpose and left me scratching my head, wondering "what was the point of that?" I'm also growing very tired of the whole "Brennan is an ignoramus in the interrogation room" bit. while I appreciated the scene for its comedic value, it's still grossly inconsistant with Brennan's character development over the span of 4 years, and it bothers me.

I also have a problem with the lack of ethics on the part of the psychologists. Earlier in the season we have Sweets telling everyone behind Booth's back that he was abused by his father as a child, and now we've got Gordon telling Booth and Bones about Sweets' troubled childhood. What ever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality?! And then to add insult to injury, Brennan just blurts out to Gordon, a man she barely knows, that Sweets has massive scarring all over his back. Do these people have no professionalism?

I will say the end was sweet, except I felt it was very rushed. I enjoy Sweets' character very much, and I am interested in learning more about him, and seeing his character develop further, and I liked the idea of Brennan forming a connection with him through mutual sharing of painful memories, but why did we have to squeeze it into the last 3 minutes of the show? I think it's a poignant idea rich with substance and potential to deepen the characters and move them forward. So why didn't we steep it thoroughly throughout the season and enjoy the process? I think we as viewers would have felt more of a pay-off if we had seen this idea progress slowly, little by little, rather than have it shoved down our throats in 3 minutes. I don't believe that Booth would have revealed something that personal on the fly like that.

I guess I just feel like they tried to do too much in this one, and it all became a scatter. I don't know what's going on this season, but it just feels like we had alot of episodes with nothing going on, and now a few that are trying to cram in a whole season's worth of story line, and it's not jiving with me. It has been a disjointed season from the start, with A.I. pushing us around, Ryan O'neal being out of comission ( I wonder if they had to do some last minute story rearrangement to work around that), and the residual effects of the writer's strike. I just hope the finale serves us well, and gets us off on the right foot for season 5...am I alone in my feeling of insult here?

boldaslove wrote:

Shelly wrote:I had alot of mixed feelings about this episode. In trying to come up with a general phrase to sum it up, I can only think of "lack of focus." I didn't find it nearly as clean, flowing, and well put together as wednesday's episode, and some stuff really rubbed me the wrong way.

First off, while I truely adore the character of Gordon, Gordon, he served no real purpose in this episode other than his omniscient commentary on Booth and Bones' relationship. I know it was only one episode, but still...Gordon, and Sweets, AND Booth all in the interrogation room, all postulating theories about criminal behaviour is just more psychobabble for one episode than I can stomach. It felt like they were constantly getting in the way of each other. It was overkill. I mean, as much as I LOVE Sweets, cuz I do, he isn't really a functional character outside of brilliant comic relief. Booth has gifted insight into the human psyche and does very well on his own. Then with Gordon added to the mix, it was just too many peas in the pod. Not to mention I HATE when the writers use static, shallow, psychological theory to tell us about Booth and Bones' relationship. Booth and Bones do a great job of that on their own through interaction and experience. Anyone who has written ANYTHING of fiction I'm sure has heard the phrase "show, don't tell." You would think the writers of an insanely popular T.V. show would have heard it somewhere along the line. And what is the deal with Sweet's book title? When will we get to SEE the conflict and controversy of Booth and Brennan's relationship through action like it used to be, instead of having it defined for us through 3rd party observation or written in a book?

I'm also getting tired of Booth being out of comission for no reason that I can see. What was the point of desking him half way through the episode? It served no purpose and left me scratching my head, wondering "what was the point of that?" I'm also growing very tired of the whole "Brennan is an ignoramus in the interrogation room" bit. while I appreciated the scene for its comedic value, it's still grossly inconsistant with Brennan's character development over the span of 4 years, and it bothers me.

I also have a problem with the lack of ethics on the part of the psychologists. Earlier in the season we have Sweets telling everyone behind Booth's back that he was abused by his father as a child, and now we've got Gordon telling Booth and Bones about Sweets' troubled childhood. What ever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality?! And then to add insult to injury, Brennan just blurts out to Gordon, a man she barely knows, that Sweets has massive scarring all over his back. Do these people have no professionalism?

I will say the end was sweet, except I felt it was very rushed. I enjoy Sweets' character very much, and I am interested in learning more about him, and seeing his character develop further, and I liked the idea of Brennan forming a connection with him through mutual sharing of painful memories, but why did we have to squeeze it into the last 3 minutes of the show? I think it's a poignant idea rich with substance and potential to deepen the characters and move them forward. So why didn't we steep it thoroughly throughout the season and enjoy the process? I think we as viewers would have felt more of a pay-off if we had seen this idea progress slowly, little by little, rather than have it shoved down our throats in 3 minutes. I don't believe that Booth would have revealed something that personal on the fly like that.

I guess I just feel like they tried to do too much in this one, and it all became a scatter. I don't know what's going on this season, but it just feels like we had alot of episodes with nothing going on, and now a few that are trying to cram in a whole season's worth of story line, and it's not jiving with me. It has been a disjointed season from the start, with A.I. pushing us around, Ryan O'neal being out of comission ( I wonder if they had to do some last minute story rearrangement to work around that), and the residual effects of the writer's strike. I just hope the finale serves us well, and gets us off on the right foot for season 5...am I alone in my feeling of insult here?

Wow. Amazingly well written. I definitely agree with your issues regarding the writing. I feel like they aren't really paying very much attention to the storyline, rather finding situations they would like B&B to be in. Personally I thought it was a little too convenient that both Sweets and GGW had personal knowledge of this subculture. I mean what are the odds?
The 'show, don't tell' comment, totally valid. Clearly setting us up for the ending, and we would have read that into it anyway.
I did like to see their insights, but overall I feel like they tried to put too much into this episode. There was too much content for the 40 minutes. For the past two eps its like "minute 1-39 = normal episode", "minute 40-43 = significant B&B moment". Way too formulaic for my liking.

Is Ryan O'Neal not around as much due to his son's drug charges?