Bones vs Castle

Most people I know who watch Castle also watch Bones. In a way, this makes sense; both are hour-long murder mystery shows, available online. Both have smart strong leading women, and lots of gore. But I gave up on Bones a long time ago. Erica asked me, very reasonably, to explain the difference between them--I mean, the difference that makes me love the one and hate the other. Exactly what she said is this: "Remind me about the differences between Castle and Bones... cuz they usually have exactly the same murder scenarios." She's right, of course. And not only do they have the same plots, they are each other's top recommendations on Hulu--an indication that the list of people who watch both shows is not limited to Erica, Dave, and my mother. 

Becket vs Bones: creepy smiling contest

Both shows have sort of freaky-looking, excessively angular female leads who give oddly flat performances. I prefer looking at Stana Katic over Emily Deschanel. It is purely subjective, and you are allowed to disagree.

The male leads (both Joss Whedon alums, for whatever that's worth) are similarly...nope, there's just no contest here. Both are sort of rugged masculine dorks, but come on. No question, Nathan Fillion is as much better in every way than David Boreanaz as...well, as Firefly is better than Angel.

In many ways, Bones is more of a science fiction show than a detective/police show. It is full of implausible futuristic scientific devices, and most of the characters are scientists, not detectives. This does not automatically make Bones a worse show, but it sets the bar higher for certain things. Because Bones is so willing to toss around fancy imaginary technology, and break all the rules of the natural world, it should be much MORE creative, and instead it is, as E pointed out, pretty much the exact same murder mysteries.

Both shows have flat secondary characters, but Bones makes me scratch my head and make horrible, horrified faces at the TV much more often, with its bizarro notions of How Smart People Behave--Temperance Brennan often doesn't understand things about human behavior for comic effect then understands them perfectly in the next scene. Each of the minor characters has exactly two traits (smart and socially awkward; artistic and bisexual; honorable and sporty; young and psychoanalytical), and they rarely make it through a scene without mentioning each at least once.

Castle is not perfect either. The daughter character, who at first seemed more like a person than most teen girls on TV, has gotten more sappy and child-like in every episode. If the show lasts, in two more seasons, she will be Richie from The Dick Van Dyke Show.

this is what that would look like

Also, I don't particularly want the will-they-won't-they-sexual/romantic-tension to drag on for twenty seasons. Those relationships (and there are dozens of examples, in every genre of TV show) inevitably begin to feel insincere and manipulative.

Those are the two things I hate about Castle.These are things I hate about Bones:
1. Toyota advertizing is weirdly and unwinkingly integrated into the show
2. Bad science
3. Bisexual who marries a dude. (Note: I don't feel like tracking down the facts, but I think this plot took place on Bones during the same season when queer women chose to be with men on both House and Nip/Tuck. There should be a term for this, making characters temporarily gay for ratings. Like maybe, "Nielson-gay.")
4.Totally unbelievable gimmicky unresolved sexual tension.
5. Weird imaginary science, when the show never seems to think of itself as SF

I put Castle in the same broad category as Psych--it's a perfectly good show that is occasionally very witty. Bones tries too hard, takes itself too seriously. And while it might occasionally be interesting or even surprising, it's never witty.

  GoAnimate.com: Bones by lydia.nichols

Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!