|
Bones
May 20, 2008 5:46:29 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 20, 2008 5:46:29 GMT -5
Well, I don't watch Bones, but I came over to read the thread as I was fascinated by the hue and cry on the main thread. As a non-viewer, just want to throw a question out there:
Could this convenient change of basic morality foisted on this character be an underdeveloped commentary about how war changes a person?
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 6:06:47 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 20, 2008 6:06:47 GMT -5
Okay, angry. Really really angry. It's a cheat. Zach never showed himself at any point to be morally bankrupt. No amount of "logic" would have allowed the character as we know him to be manipulated into committing murder or helping a serial cannibal. The cannibal part tears it for me, actually. Zach is too smart not to see that cannibal = insane. They just sacrificed a character for the sake of a plot twist. NOT okay. Maybe if the strike hadn't interfered they could have given it more time to develop. Yeah, I know, total wank. Well, Booth's "death" was a total cheat too, so we were warned. But at least the death thing was much better done. I could hear people all over the country going: but I KNOW he can't be dead..... The missing of Zach will be worse once the new season starts. Odd, but, I might have felt even worse if he wasn't the bad guy and had to live with his hands. That was horrid---probably because it at least seemed so much realistic than the crazy cannibal guy in the candle lit basement. The explanation seemed to be his "weak personality?" That would have been more believeable first season when he followed Booth around like a puppy dog and asked for his approval. He did ocassionally adapt himself to please others (I guess I'm recalling the "makeover") but Yeah, I'm probably only babbling on due to sleep deprivation.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 6:11:35 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 20, 2008 6:11:35 GMT -5
I would note that Professor Mary has a discussion going on her live journal (makd) and and while she agrees with the general tenor of the board here she attributes much of the utter lameness of the season ender on the writer's strike, which took... six episodes? I think? out of the plot and character development, and robbed the show of the possibility of selling the audience on Zach being the apprentice. Julia, unnerved and unconvinced in equal measure I tried that excuse too, but they spent enough time on the Sweets subplot that they could have worked on Zach de-devlopment. Nah, the writers didn't want to risk giving anything away. Sadly, other than the MAIN plot point, it was a decent episode. So, Brennan's dad goes free and Zach goes to a mental hospital (but not to prison because we "like" him?) I'm thinking the writers may be the ones with screwed by moral guidelines. Pretty flexible there, guys.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 6:12:36 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 20, 2008 6:12:36 GMT -5
Well, I don't watch Bones, but I came over to read the thread as I was fascinated by the hue and cry on the main thread. As a non-viewer, just want to throw a question out there: Could this convenient change of basic morality foisted on this character be an underdeveloped commentary about how war changes a person? If that's what they were going for all they management was a non=existant commentary.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 6:28:31 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 20, 2008 6:28:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 6:46:32 GMT -5
Post by Pixi on May 20, 2008 6:46:32 GMT -5
This is my reaction:
What the frak? I delayed watching Gossip Girl's finale till Sunday for this? Are you kidding me? What was that? Seriously, what was that? How does a beloved, socially awkward good guy suddenly become a cannibalistic bad guy? (okay he didn't eat anyone. Whatever)
Hey -showruners - I DON'T BUY IT!!!
I could have bought it being Sweets. As Cam said, it made sense. Not a surprise, but it would make sense. But there is simply no way I'm buying this. What a bunch of crap!
Were the writers on drugs? Zach meets a guy who convinces him to become his apprentice in murdering people (so he can eat them) and he does it?
And the whole fake funeral? I was all what? Is this real? And it didn't even feel real and who was that random guy anyway?
HATE, HATE, HATE!!!
No more fun with Hodges and Zach and all that earlier fun is going to be tainted now. I loved their experiments.
HATE, HATE, HATE!!!
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 6:48:38 GMT -5
Post by Karen on May 20, 2008 6:48:38 GMT -5
Interesting. The thought that flashed through my mind when Zach was in the hospital bed talking with Temperance and Booth was that he was very much like Xander when he was in Dracula's thrall. But....they needed much much more character development to make his total breakdown believeable. They sacrificed that for the shock of the reveal...and it just doesn't work. It worked in Buffy because - fantasy and all. If they wanted to show us how a person's intelligence could be used against them the writers needed to be much more savvy about subtly working that into the storyline. I blame the writer's strike totally. They should've given that part of the storyline another season to develop it. Just didn't work for me. Plus, I liked Zach a lot. He came off more weak-minded than cleverly manipulated. Could've actually been quite a powerful message if they had managed to do it right. Oh well. Writing bad. Booth pretty.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 6:49:00 GMT -5
Post by Pixi on May 20, 2008 6:49:00 GMT -5
Eh, this is one big Writer's Foul for me. There's no freaking way a character who consulted with Booth as to the moral course of action when called up by his country would succumb to some stupid-ass reasoning, no matter how cryptic, to engage in murder at the behest of someone else. To be in a place where he could be influenced that way, he'd have been a hell of a lot more damaged by his time in Iraq than he let on: but Sweets was calling him "sane" by the end of the episode. This is a case where they broke the character beyond recognition for the sake of a "shocking" ending; an ending that was NOT true to the character they had established over the last three years. Hell, I can see him as a cannibal, in a survival situation. I can see him euthanizing and dissecting animals, easily, for educational reasons. I don't see him, as he's been painted thus far, as being a murderous tool of some charismatic nutbar, easily brainwashed into betraying both his principles, his most admired friends and their principles, and the trust he felt emplaced in him as a servant of objective truth. Mathew - I could not agree more. If they had planted seeds about the war changing him and showed this throughout the season - maybe. I doubt it, but maybe. But this? Complete and utter bullshit.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 7:55:48 GMT -5
Post by Sue on May 20, 2008 7:55:48 GMT -5
Interesting. The thought that flashed through my mind when Zach was in the hospital bed talking with Temperance and Booth was that he was very much like Xander when he was in Dracula's thrall. But....they needed much much more character development to make his total breakdown believeable. They sacrificed that for the shock of the reveal...and it just doesn't work. It worked in Buffy because - fantasy and all. If they wanted to show us how a person's intelligence could be used against them the writers needed to be much more savvy about subtly working that into the storyline. I blame the writer's strike totally. They should've given that part of the storyline another season to develop it. Just didn't work for me. Plus, I liked Zach a lot. He came off more weak-minded than cleverly manipulated. Could've actually been quite a powerful message if they had managed to do it right. Oh well. Writing bad. Booth pretty.Have you seen that book that does biographies in 6 words. I know Colbert had the guy on. Here we have "Karen's episode review in 4 words!" I mean, really, what more needs to be said? Did anyone catch the exchange of writers between CSI and 2.5 Men? The writers did a great job on the 2.5 Men half of the episode and the world's crappiest job on the CSI half. (Me? I hated the Gormogon storyline from day 1. I thought the name was stupid and the convoluted story line was stupid. And, even leaving Zach aside, the 30 second resolution involving a character never even seen before was stupid. The writers need to stick to the procedural parameters, cause they sure as heck can't do an arc.)
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 8:38:08 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 20, 2008 8:38:08 GMT -5
I would note that Professor Mary has a discussion going on her live journal (makd) and and while she agrees with the general tenor of the board here she attributes much of the utter lameness of the season ender on the writer's strike, which took... six episodes? I think? out of the plot and character development, and robbed the show of the possibility of selling the audience on Zach being the apprentice. Julia, unnerved and unconvinced in equal measure I get that there was a writer's strike, and so the character development might have been better...though I'm still having much difficulty reconciling the Zach we know with someone so easily manipulated. Having discovered that the actor didn't want to leave the show, either, well...this does nothing for my mental state.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 8:44:08 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 20, 2008 8:44:08 GMT -5
Well, I don't watch Bones, but I came over to read the thread as I was fascinated by the hue and cry on the main thread. As a non-viewer, just want to throw a question out there: Could this convenient change of basic morality foisted on this character be an underdeveloped commentary about how war changes a person? It could have, but if it is, it's unbelievably poorly handled and an insult to the thousands of soldiers who come back from war and don't immediately become manipulation fodder for serial killers. I mean, if you wank it enough, you could see the war as having been started by those in the secret halls of power, those who Gormagon claimed to be fighting. But here's the thing: the logic isn't infallible - it's simplistic and flimsy. It's not Zach, to be persuaded by such a poor argument, one that leaves aside all the other basic premises that work against it, such as the harm done to society by individuals who feel free to make law as they choose. Also, the cannibalism isn't explained away by the "logical" argument. No one as brilliant as Zach is gonna go, "Yeah, great logic, and in no way do I worry that you eat them after you kill them and then use bits of them as trophies." One thing was clearly true - it's not logic that explains this, but some sort of manipulation. I just don't believe Zach, he of the seemingly immune to peer pressure, would be that susceptible. Iraq might have changed Zach, but I don't think that much.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 8:44:50 GMT -5
Post by Pixi on May 20, 2008 8:44:50 GMT -5
Yes, the writer's strike made a mess of seasonal arcs but I'm sorry. This is simply unacceptable. There is simply no way I can see a character that has been lovingly developed over three seasons, working as a force for good, to suddenly fall under the sway of a serial killer.
A cannibalistic serial killer mind you.
Yes, the war might have changed him. But you didn't show this and I still don't buy that the war changed him that much.
And he did all this to what? Help faceless, nameless guy get rid of secret society members?
Oh please.
Plus the funeral, the idiocy of everything else . . . . . . .
I'm not granting the writers any "out" on this. They should have ended the season last week.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 8:52:17 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 20, 2008 8:52:17 GMT -5
Okay, angry. Really really angry. It's a cheat. Zach never showed himself at any point to be morally bankrupt. No amount of "logic" would have allowed the character as we know him to be manipulated into committing murder or helping a serial cannibal. The cannibal part tears it for me, actually. Zach is too smart not to see that cannibal = insane. They just sacrificed a character for the sake of a plot twist. NOT okay. Maybe if the strike hadn't interfered they could have given it more time to develop. Yeah, I know, total wank. Well, Booth's "death" was a total cheat too, so we were warned. But at least the death thing was much better done. I could hear people all over the country going: but I KNOW he can't be dead..... The missing of Zach will be worse once the new season starts. Odd, but, I might have felt even worse if he wasn't the bad guy and had to live with his hands. That was horrid---probably because it at least seemed so much realistic than the crazy cannibal guy in the candle lit basement. The explanation seemed to be his "weak personality?" That would have been more believeable first season when he followed Booth around like a puppy dog and asked for his approval. He did ocassionally adapt himself to please others (I guess I'm recalling the "makeover") but Yeah, I'm probably only babbling on due to sleep deprivation. He adapted himself to keep his job. We all do that. It's normal, not a sign that a serial killer could take over your mind. He's not, and has never really been, the kid who'll do whatever it takes to be in the "in crowd". And even if he was, his already-chosen "in crowd" were way cooler, and had already accepted him. Like Dave said, no way would Zach have betrayed his family that way. Zach was NOT lacking in empathy, nor was he so logical as to not have human emotions. He didn't indulge them in public, often, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. We SAW him with his family. We've seen him with the lab. We've never seen the Zach that they wanted us to see in this episode before.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 9:00:48 GMT -5
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 20, 2008 9:00:48 GMT -5
Interesting. The thought that flashed through my mind when Zach was in the hospital bed talking with Temperance and Booth was that he was very much like Xander when he was in Dracula's thrall. But....they needed much much more character development to make his total breakdown believeable. They sacrificed that for the shock of the reveal...and it just doesn't work. It worked in Buffy because - fantasy and all. If they wanted to show us how a person's intelligence could be used against them the writers needed to be much more savvy about subtly working that into the storyline. I blame the writer's strike totally. They should've given that part of the storyline another season to develop it. Just didn't work for me. Plus, I liked Zach a lot. He came off more weak-minded than cleverly manipulated. Could've actually been quite a powerful message if they had managed to do it right. Oh well. Writing bad. Booth pretty. Have you seen that book that does biographies in 6 words. I know Colbert had the guy on. Here we have "Karen's episode review in 4 words!" I mean, really, what more needs to be said? Did anyone catch the exchange of writers between CSI and 2.5 Men? The writers did a great job on the 2.5 Men half of the episode and the world's crappiest job on the CSI half. (Me? I hated the Gormogon storyline from day 1. I thought the name was stupid and the convoluted story line was stupid. And, even leaving Zach aside, the 30 second resolution involving a character never even seen before was stupid. The writers need to stick to the procedural parameters, cause they sure as heck can't do an arc.) They're called "Six word memoirs" - I've got Colbert's in my sig line. As to the rest - no. Just... no. If you can't do something that drastic, and do it well, don't do it at all. Lack of time due to the writers' strike is not an excuse. Also, my husband the chemist says that all the babble about melting polymers was just that - babble. They threw a lot of words together without actually doing any research, and what came out made no sense. I'm very disappointed in this show, and may not watch it next season.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 9:03:42 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 20, 2008 9:03:42 GMT -5
And another thing...while the "faked death" thing was played for laughs, and I did laugh, I find myself really pissed off that they built up to that lovely emotional moment the week before, and then did NOTHING useful with it.
Instead they took the Gormagon and destroyed a character (and a plotline, considering that up to this point the Gormagon plot was actually interesting rather than completely lame).
|
|