S3 Sweets Talk

Discussion of TJ's most popular venture to date!
bonesaddict11
Super Fan
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:19 am

S3 Sweets Talk

Post by bonesaddict11 »

I actually kinda like sweets... :oops:

I don't see why everybody dislikes him so much. Hes a very silly character :mrgreen:

not that i like him better than any of the other squints or anything :D
word count: 34

User avatar
ThyneAlone
TJ Team Validator
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Northwest UK, near Liverpool

Re: Spoiler Talk

Post by ThyneAlone »

I find him a bit irritating, but then he hasn't had the chance to mature as a character as the others have; however his link with the even-more-annoying-in-my-view Gormagon arc has prejudiced me against him slightly.
Rebecca's main quarrel with him, I believe, is that these days, with ever more concentration on the BB relationship, Squint Time is more precious and should be given to the underdeveloped characters we already have - especially TJ of course. What do we really know about the backgrounds of, for example, Hodgins and Zach? Sweets is taking up that time and, if he isn't actually an evil participant in the Gormagon plot, which now looks less likely, is simply superfluous and not a particularly good replacement for the Stephen Fry dynamic.
Although, yeah, I'll give it to you, he can be amusing and highlight other relationships.
word count: 150
"We make our lives out of chaos and hope. And love." - Angela Montenegro

late_heart
Fan
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Spoiler Talk

Post by late_heart »

ThyneAlone wrote: Squint Time is more precious and should be given to the underdeveloped characters we already have
Agreed -- and I'll take it one step further: the addition of the actor as a credited regular is further proof that the show is a mess. Sweets is not Gormogon; it's a massive red herring because they've put the actor in the credits. (Very clever, oh, yes, Sweets the brat is actually a Squint! *rolls eyes*) He's a cheap device to push the show's existing romantic relationships. And where does that leave Dr. Addy?

Pairing Zach and Sweets romantically would take a page out of the Torchwood playbook and give Eric some muchly-deserved screen time. (Yes, I know that Eric's decision is to play Zach straight, so that's said with humor and all due respect.) My less snarky point is that TJ and Michaela have had their showcase episodes and Eric is overdue for his.

Would I be this irritated if Stephen Fry had joined the cast? No. But that's because I bought his character's premise; clearly when it comes to Sweets, I don't. But that discussion belongs elsewhere...
word count: 198
...he remains Hodgins of the unstoppable libido, with the constantly coiling Kundalini, the freaky twist of mystic master meets geekzilla. He’s still a poet, a shaman of the weird, and he’s in there, somewhere...

Sinkwriter72
King of the Lab
Posts: 1856
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Spoiler Talk

Post by Sinkwriter72 »

ThyneAlone wrote:Rebecca's main quarrel with him, I believe, is that these days, with ever more concentration on the BB relationship, Squint Time is more precious and should be given to the underdeveloped characters we already have - especially TJ of course. What do we really know about the backgrounds of, for example, Hodgins and Zach? Sweets is taking up that time and, if he isn't actually an evil participant in the Gormagon plot, which now looks less likely, is simply superfluous and not a particularly good replacement for the Stephen Fry dynamic.
That is it, in a nutshell, for me. That is my issue with Sweets. It's nothing against the actor -- I like him, he's funny and talented, and I think he does a fine job overall. I just think the problem with so many shows out there is how the writers (or creator, or executives, or whoever makes these kinds of decisions) forget their core cast. They start writing side parts, thinking it's going to be entertaining, and sometimes it is, but if they ignore the main cast for too long, the pacing and energy level shifts, the focus gets scattered, and the show loses what makes it special. It's like they forget: there's still so much they could explore with the main cast of characters they already have. We'd love more in-depth exploration of character and back history (especially for the long-ignored Squints). But they forget all about those possibilities. Instead, they go with 'Ooh, look, something shiny and new!' We as viewers don't have short attention spans; they do.

What I love about Bones is that from the very beginning it was about this team, this core group of people, and how they related to one another and worked together and how they interacted (and oftentimes clashed) with Booth. I loved watching those relationships shift and change as each character changed. These people all deserve to be explored more. They're interesting characters, and the wonderful little hints that the writers have come up with about each of them are fascinating. Why can't they see how terrific it would be to explore that? You cannot ignore character development.

That is why I think the story between Angela and Hodgins has stalled -- the writers show them all lovey-dovey, which is sweet, but they no longer write actions and plots to drive that emotion. Not anything soap-opera-like, that's not what I mean; in fact I think that would be horrible -- I mean that there should be substance underneath the sweetness. When they first started making eyes at each other, there were specific story-related actions to go along with it: Angela helping Hodgins when he panicked in Blonde in the Game; Hodgins talking with and comforting Angela when she worried about Brennan in Man in the Morgue; the numerous times they flirt with each other during silly moments in the show. You could tell how they felt about each other, and it was given weight by what was happening within the storyline. Lately poor TJ and Michaela have been stuck joking about how much their characters love each other (isn't she adorable, isn't he smooshy), but there's no actual story. They deserve more than that. And it certainly would make things more interesting for the viewers.

P.S. I totally agree that Zack deserves to have a moment in the sun. He's long overdue for it.

Ah... I could go on about this, but as Annie points out, this probably isn't the thread for it. Perhaps we need a new one, under the Bones forum. Especially because I'm trying to avoid all spoilers so I can be surprised and in-the-moment with the characters when I watch the new episodes.
:mrgreen:
word count: 644

User avatar
ThyneAlone
TJ Team Validator
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Northwest UK, near Liverpool

Re: Spoiler Talk

Post by ThyneAlone »

Sinkwriter72 wrote:I could go on about this, but as Annie points out, this probably isn't the thread for it. Perhaps we need a new one, under the Bones forum. Especially because I'm trying to avoid all spoilers so I can be surprised and in-the-moment with the characters when I watch the new episodes. :mrgreen:
No sooner said than done, dearie - here is your Sweets discussion well out of the way of any spoilers!
word count: 77
"We make our lives out of chaos and hope. And love." - Angela Montenegro

User avatar
ThyneAlone
TJ Team Validator
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Northwest UK, near Liverpool

Re: Spoiler Talk

Post by ThyneAlone »

I agree so much with you 2 that I have to say so:
late_heart wrote:Pairing Zach and Sweets romantically would take a page out of the Torchwood playbook and give Eric some muchly-deserved screen time. TJ and Michaela have had their showcase episodes and Eric is overdue for his.
<<cheer>> Hear hear! (nice to know I have fellow Torchwood viewers on board)
late_heart wrote:Would I be this irritated if Stephen Fry had joined the cast? No. But that's because I bought his character's premise; clearly when it comes to Sweets, I don't.
Not to mention that he stayed out of everybody else's territory! I don't want the profiler prowling round the lab! What's the point?
Sinkwriter72 wrote:What I love about Bones is that from the very beginning it was about this team, this core group of people, and how they related to one another and worked together and how they interacted (and oftentimes clashed) with Booth. You cannot ignore character development.
Me too, me too *eager hand up* I started watching for the group dynamic! Everyone seems to think that the Buffy contingent started watching for David Boreanaz, SO not true (especially as I watched Buffy for the group too!). And you are right - you can't just stop when you have been developing the characters for a while. They stagnate noticeably.
Sinkwriter72 wrote:That is why I think the story between Angela and Hodgins has stalled -- the writers show them all lovey-dovey, but they no longer write actions and plots to drive that emotion. There should be substance underneath the sweetness. When they first started making eyes at each other, there were specific story-related actions to go along with it. Lately poor TJ and Michaela have been stuck joking about how much their characters love each other, but there's no actual story. They deserve more than that.
They do! Much underused talent all round! And lazy writing. This is why I want out of that stupid unrealistic Hide-and-Freak arc about the Supposedly Suffering Spouse. It keeps Hodgins and Angela in exactly the same spot in the relationship with no space for developing something more real. Which is what the presence of Sweets is, in a wider sense, doing for everyone. Making them tread water.

Oops, didn't realise I was going to write that much, you people are an inspiration, y'know?
word count: 410
"We make our lives out of chaos and hope. And love." - Angela Montenegro

bonesaddict11
Super Fan
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:19 am

Re: Sweets Talk

Post by bonesaddict11 »

Whoaa.. was my post originally in this thread? or did someone make a new one and put it here?
--edited: OoOo. I got it. Steph put it here. Haha. I thought i somehow created a new topic and somehow my post floated from the other one to this one. it kinda freaked me out. :mrgreen:

Well i must say that i understand where you guys are coming from. 6 people is already a lot of main characters. and i see your point on the Stephen Fry thing. His character was very different and I kind of see how Sweets could be pushing zach and hodgins away.

But i think we should give him some time to develop as a character. Maybe he's not the new "squints replacement" you all think he is. I dont know, maybe hes more than meets the eye...

But what do i know? It's been a while since i saw any Bones at all. And I don't remember all the details well. Once I see a few more episodes with Sweets in it, I think i will be able to get a good feeling of who he really is.

Monday April 14th!!!! (for US people anyway, sorry other people. =) I'm excited.
word count: 208

User avatar
skftex
TJ Team Validator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Sweets Talk

Post by skftex »

I don't hate Sweets, but I've yet to decide what he brings to the show. Booth visiting a psychiatrist (or was he a psychologist :?: :?: ) after shooting the clown head I understood, and then continuing because of the way that Stephen Fry's character related to him, I also understood. I guess Sweets purpose is to help the BB relationship move ahead but I think there are ways they could do that with the characters they already have. Angela has since the beginning been Brennans go to girl, and Booth well, he started relating to the squints so they had to bring yet another one in...I don't get it. Anyway, like I said, I don't hate him, I just don't think he's necessary. :|

Sharon
word count: 130
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing.-Camille Pissarro

User avatar
ThyneAlone
TJ Team Validator
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Northwest UK, near Liverpool

Re: Sweets Talk

Post by ThyneAlone »

Fantastic signature Sharon!
Oops, and it kind of took my mind off what I wanted to say, er, er *scratches head* yes, one of the objections I have is the seeming lack of logic behind Sweets' introduction - there used to be better reasons than as a device to further a relationship which, as you say, could be achieved in other ways.
But Dohee, note that most of us aren't anti-Sweets, we're pro Squint Club!
word count: 77
"We make our lives out of chaos and hope. And love." - Angela Montenegro

TJ4ever
King of the Lab
Posts: 1393
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:23 am
Location: Germany

Re: Sweets Talk

Post by TJ4ever »

I have no idea who "Sweets" is! :? Can anybody fill me in, please?
Thanks!
Simone
word count: 15
Angela: Well, what about love? What do you have to say about love?
Hodgins: It´s overrated-most of the time :-)


Dexter: They make it look so easy-connecting with another human being. It's like no one told them it's the hardest thing in the world.

bonesaddict11
Super Fan
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:19 am

Re: Sweets Talk

Post by bonesaddict11 »

Dr. Sweets is a psychiatrist assigned to Booth and Brennan after the F.B.I. feels the conflict between them may be affecting their working relationship. The character made his first appearance in the third season premiere and his portrayer, John Francis Daley, became a main cast member from the ninth episode, "The Santa in the Slush", onwards. He is 22 years old, which causes Booth to be condescending towards him. While he is seemingly annoyed at Booth, Sweets stands his ground against him. He has the ability to effectively talk to both Booth and Brennan in the language appropriate to each. Also, Sweets is trained as a profiler and has to date assisted Booth and Bones, finding even dull lab-work new and exciting. As part of the third season's ongoing storyline concerning the serial killers collectively known as The Gormogon, Sweets helps Booth and Brennan identify possible victims and profile the Gormogon.

Hehe. I love Wikipedia. Basically, Sweets is Booth and Bones psychiatrist and he's kinda young, so Booth treats him like a kid. And hes also kinda dorky if u ask me. :D

Does that help any Simone?
word count: 192

User avatar
ThyneAlone
TJ Team Validator
Posts: 2704
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Northwest UK, near Liverpool

Re: Sweets Talk

Post by ThyneAlone »

Ouch, I'm so sorry, I keep forgetting that other countries are behind us in the viewing schedules. Were it not for various video sites I'd not have seen the end of S2 or any of S3 myself (having lost Sky 1 last year), and would be just as confused. And then there is the vexed spoiler question, as we may unwittingly be spoiling those who do not wish to be spoiled - I think I will put a season reference or, where appropriate, an ep reference on topic titles here so that people can see whether we are talking about things they may wish to avoid. And of course, use the Spoiler section of 'Anticipation' as well.

Sweets has been a controversial addition, Simone, and has been unfavourably compared to Stephen Fry who played the same kind of role, specifically for Booth, in S2. I'm sure what Dohee has found on Wikipedia has helped you -it's all correct!
word count: 161
"We make our lives out of chaos and hope. And love." - Angela Montenegro

TJ4ever
King of the Lab
Posts: 1393
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:23 am
Location: Germany

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by TJ4ever »

Thanks for the update! They plan on showing season 3 this fall in Germany, but who knows!?
word count: 17
Angela: Well, what about love? What do you have to say about love?
Hodgins: It´s overrated-most of the time :-)


Dexter: They make it look so easy-connecting with another human being. It's like no one told them it's the hardest thing in the world.

begolden
Conspiracy Theorist
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:53 am
Location: Ocean Beach, San Diego, CA

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by begolden »

You gals have started a fascinating conversation since I've away!

I also prefer Stephen Fry's psychiatrist to Sweets. First off, Stephen Fry is head and shoulders above JFD as an actor (as he is above pretty much the rest of the cast--no offence to any of them). And as Steph said, my main bone to pick with Sweets is the screen time he's been given in the lab that leaves less screen time for T.J., Michaela, and Eric.
word count: 83
Fan of the Orgasmic Grilled Cheese Sandwich

Image

begolden
Conspiracy Theorist
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:53 am
Location: Ocean Beach, San Diego, CA

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by begolden »

"You're not doing anything except getting in the way."

Hodgins to Sweets, The Pain in the Heart


Even Hodgins agrees with me!
word count: 23
Fan of the Orgasmic Grilled Cheese Sandwich

Image

User avatar
skftex
TJ Team Validator
Posts: 2304
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:16 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by skftex »

I have to say I still can't say that I HATE Sweets but he really bothered me last night. I thought they had WAY too much Sweets in it, and so does he let them back into the wild??? He said he would if they could go out and not talk about work. They did it. Does that mean BYE BYE Sweets? I'm betting no. :roll:

Sharon
word count: 68
Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing.-Camille Pissarro

pib
Fan
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by pib »

i like him he brings more laughts to the show i really wanted dr whyatt to be there doctor to me sweets is to young and doesnt really get booth and bones realtionship but its funny to see how he interacts with them and is girlfirend was silly to.
word count: 49

bonesaddict11
Super Fan
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:19 am

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by bonesaddict11 »

Finally! Someone who is not totally bothered by Sweets. :wink:
word count: 9

sapphiresilt
Fan
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:01 am
Location: London, England

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by sapphiresilt »

I posted my thoughts about Sweets at tv.com, but I wanted to post them here, as well. Hello, everyone! I'm back (or at least will try to be as much as possible!). :D

* * * *

I like Sweets as a recurring character (and I think the actor does a great job with the part), but I think he is taking away too much screen time from the Squints. Yes, Bones and Booth are the two main characters, but some of us watch just as much (if not more so) for the Squint Squad. So far with Season 3 it seems that Jack, Angela, Zack, and Cam have had fewer scenes. I really miss their camaraderie...and also their relationship to B/B. Angela used to be the one who commented and "advised" Bones and Booth on their relationsip, Zack was the young geek that Booth liked to tease, and Jack was the one trying to become friends with Booth (what happened to their budding friendship subplot from S2?).

And I don't see a point to having a psychological viewpoint on the cases...I could watch Criminal Minds if I wanted that. It was hard to accept Cam at first because I loved the anthropological/archaeological viewpoint that Goodman brought...that is what made Bones so unique and special. But I accepted that Cam could bring more breadth to the types of cases they investigate while still keeping the bones and forensics evidence as the main sources for how they solve the crimes. In my opinion, if we then add the psychological angle, it will take the show even further away from the magic of Season 1.

* * * *

I'm working my way through the threads and will post as often as I can. I've missed everyone!!

~Eileen (aka jackandangela and hodginsgirl)
word count: 301

Sinkwriter72
King of the Lab
Posts: 1856
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: S3 Sweets Talk

Post by Sinkwriter72 »

Well said, Eileen! *applauds you* Very well said. And I concur whole-heartedly.

So glad you popped back in. Welcome back! :D
word count: 21
I want to thank anyone who spends part of their day creating [& sharing their experience]. I don't care if it's a book, a film, a painting, a dance, a piece of theater, a piece of music… I think this world would be unlivable without art. ~ S. Soderbergh