|
Bones
May 20, 2008 9:31:54 GMT -5
Post by Sara on May 20, 2008 9:31:54 GMT -5
I don't really have a horse in this race, so I offer this bit from the TV Squad review merely to provide another perspective on last night's events:
These were great distractions to pull us away from the person who actually did it -- Dr. Zack Addy. Wow. Who would've thunk it? I mean, I speculated but thought that it was a long shot. The thought was either Gormogon or his apprentice would be totally outside of the Jeffersonian. Never did I think that Zack would have the balls to become Gormogon's helper, let alone kill someone for him? Wasn't he sent home from Iraq because he never really fit in amongst all of the mayhem taking place over there?
It's probably not all that far-fetched that Zack was the apprentice just by thinking back to all of his appearances this past season. Zack became so unemotional this past year that he made Mr. Spock look emotionally-balanced. As he stepped further and further away from his emotions, he tightened his grip on his logic--to the point that his logic became flawed. Is this what happens when emotions are stripped away to be replaced by an almost mechanized reaction to everything? Something for the philosophers reading this review to ponder.
When it was revealed that Zack was the apprentice, and the murderer of the lobbyist, it was shocking. And, very sad. Not only to us viewers, but to all of the people in Zack's life. Particularly the women, who were all just devastated about this. Cam and Bones were hurt the most. Did you see the look on Cam's face when she realized that Zack was the apprentice? The stock market hasn't fallen that fast in recent memory. Then, watching Cam, Angela and Bones at the ICU window as they took one of the last glances they would have of the Zack that they knew. It was heart-breaking.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 9:35:47 GMT -5
Post by Sara on May 20, 2008 9:35:47 GMT -5
Also, a fun fact pointed out elsewhere: David Boreanaz recently voiced Green Lantern in a direct-to-dvd animated film, making his choice of bathtub reading a nice wink to the fans.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 9:41:47 GMT -5
Post by Pixi on May 20, 2008 9:41:47 GMT -5
All I can say is whoever wrote that review hasn't been watching the show very long. I get that Iraq was probably the motivation for this SL but it wasn't portrayed and it doesn't work.
Still not buying it.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 10:09:39 GMT -5
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 20, 2008 10:09:39 GMT -5
OK, this episode gave me major whiplash, y'all. The macro writing for the entire season was incredibly weak; either that or the writers were on crack and decided to throw everything away and write an episode that would be exciting and dramatic, provided that the audience had never watched the show at all before. Also, there was a major disconnect between this episode and the last one. I mean, Booth was shot, right? And in this episode he was walking around like he wasn't even injured. Fail.
Of course, I never really watched this show for the macro plot nor the case of the weeks. Booth/David Boreanaz is alright, but I really could care less about him. What I've been watching this show for the portrayal of the science and scientists, which while not perfect, is the best I've seen on TV. And being a scientist myself, I take this kind of personally, since the tv/movie science and scientists are usually portrayed so poorly. So, I'm most disappointed in how the show mishandled Zach's arch and then dispensed of him. "Weak-minded" my ass.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 10:14:54 GMT -5
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 20, 2008 10:14:54 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? After sleeping on it, I see it more as a cautionary tale for writers: don't get so hung up on your story outline that you ignore the way the story is actually developing. Julia, not that I've ever outlined anything beforehand, including testimony on EISes and twenty-five page term papaers, because my brain prefers to do the outline after the first draft.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 10:19:38 GMT -5
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 20, 2008 10:19:38 GMT -5
God, I really don't want to go over to LJ this morning; the fumes off my friends listies' anger was making my eyes water last night...
Julia, oh, well
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 10:21:39 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 20, 2008 10:21:39 GMT -5
Nah, still not buying it. TV Guide guy can retcon it all he likes, but it's like this:
If this were Joss, we'd have been all pissed off, but then Erin or an Erin-equivalent would pop in and say, "Actually, there were clues all season long, if you were looking for them," and then give examples.
And then we would all rewatch and go, "Oh, yeah. There's one. And there's another."
I'm gonna be willing to put money on those clues being completely absent in Bones.
And I'm with Liz, also - the "weird hyperlogical scientist" is an overdone stereotype, and what they did last night was imply that Zach's lack of normal human emotions made him weak-minded. Nevermind that Zach has never been shown to lack emotions - quite the opposite, in fact.
He doesn't understand human behavior a lot of the time, yes. Not the same thing. And, really, do we then think that people with Asperger's or other autistic spectrum disorders are easy targets for serial killers?
As for the Spock reference, I'm just gonna say that the reviewer clearly doesn't understand Vulcans at all. Spock was not "emotionally unbalanced". He was emotionally controlled. Again, lack of emotional display does NOT equal lack of emotion. (Just ask our resident Vermonters.)
And the Vulcan logical system actually works like real logic. It includes the dictates of ethical and moral considerations, despite the fact that these are variable and thus not entirely rational. There ain't a Vulcan out there (a sane one, anyway) who would have thought this was an acceptable and logical behavior pattern for Zach.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 10:32:54 GMT -5
Post by Michelle on May 20, 2008 10:32:54 GMT -5
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!! It can't be Zach. I'm confused. So, 3 months ago? So, if Zach really believes this "master" thing, it's only been a short time? Or was Zach just trying to catch the guy? Or . . . ? And Hodgins drugged him to try and stop him saying too much. Damn. Zach did kill one guy. I'm totally and completely bummed. I can only think that Zach went a bit nutty when he was with the army. Because I don't like them writing that this is what Zach is like. (Mostly cranky 'cuz it smacks too much of the theme they like to use here that folks like Zack or Bones have to conform more or else they are not as "human" as the more "normal" folks.) That, too. I am not pleased that they took the "oddest" of the squints and decided to make a murderer out of him. That really grates my cheese as well. Temperance and Zach touching foreheads was a nice moment, but other than that, the show has royally pissed me off.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 10:39:05 GMT -5
Post by Queen E on May 20, 2008 10:39:05 GMT -5
Nah, still not buying it. TV Guide guy can retcon it all he likes, but it's like this: If this were Joss, we'd have been all pissed off, but then Erin or an Erin-equivalent would pop in and say, "Actually, there were clues all season long, if you were looking for them," and then give examples. And then we would all rewatch and go, "Oh, yeah. There's one. And there's another." I'm gonna be willing to put money on those clues being completely absent in Bones. And I'm with Liz, also - the "weird hyperlogical scientist" is an overdone stereotype, and what they did last night was imply that Zach's lack of normal human emotions made him weak-minded. Nevermind that Zach has never been shown to lack emotions - quite the opposite, in fact. He doesn't understand human behavior a lot of the time, yes. Not the same thing. And, really, do we then think that people with Asperger's or other autistic spectrum disorders are easy targets for serial killers? As for the Spock reference, I'm just gonna say that the reviewer clearly doesn't understand Vulcans at all. Spock was not "emotionally unbalanced". He was emotionally controlled. Again, lack of emotional display does NOT equal lack of emotion. (Just ask our resident Vermonters.) And the Vulcan logical system actually works like real logic. It includes the dictates of ethical and moral considerations, despite the fact that these are variable and thus not entirely rational. There ain't a Vulcan out there (a sane one, anyway) who would have thought this was an acceptable and logical behavior pattern for Zach. Aww, now I'm strangely touched. And imagining an army of me going around the interwebs pointing out consistent storytelling. Which is making me giggle. Again. Some more. I will say this...my friend here who is doing an entire chapter on Bones will find this development quite interesting, which is probably the only good thing that would come out of what is apparently a gross violation of character development and storytelling.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 10:39:21 GMT -5
Post by Spaced Out Looney on May 20, 2008 10:39:21 GMT -5
Nah, still not buying it. TV Guide guy can retcon it all he likes, but it's like this: If this were Joss, we'd have been all pissed off, but then Erin or an Erin-equivalent would pop in and say, "Actually, there were clues all season long, if you were looking for them," and then give examples.
And then we would all rewatch and go, "Oh, yeah. There's one. And there's another."
I'm gonna be willing to put money on those clues being completely absent in Bones. And I'm with Liz, also - the "weird hyperlogical scientist" is an overdone stereotype, and what they did last night was imply that Zach's lack of normal human emotions made him weak-minded. Nevermind that Zach has never been shown to lack emotions - quite the opposite, in fact. He doesn't understand human behavior a lot of the time, yes. Not the same thing. And, really, do we then think that people with Asperger's or other autistic spectrum disorders are easy targets for serial killers? As for the Spock reference, I'm just gonna say that the reviewer clearly doesn't understand Vulcans at all. Spock was not "emotionally unbalanced". He was emotionally controlled. Again, lack of emotional display does NOT equal lack of emotion. (Just ask our resident Vermonters.) And the Vulcan logical system actually works like real logic. It includes the dictates of ethical and moral considerations, despite the fact that these are variable and thus not entirely rational. There ain't a Vulcan out there (a sane one, anyway) who would have thought this was an acceptable and logical behavior pattern for Zach. Egg-xactly. Also, it seems like people in general don't understand what logic is. (Not even the writers on Star Trek a lot of the time, despite the importance of it to one of the alien races they created). Logic is a *process* and using logic does not automatically lead to a singular "right" conclusion. Logic builds upon certain assumptions, whatever they may be, and two people can argue logically for opposite things if they're base assumptions are different. (Bones was actually mostly right when she was explaining this to Zach. I think.)
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 11:04:18 GMT -5
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 20, 2008 11:04:18 GMT -5
Nah, still not buying it. TV Guide guy can retcon it all he likes, but it's like this: If this were Joss, we'd have been all pissed off, but then Erin or an Erin-equivalent would pop in and say, "Actually, there were clues all season long, if you were looking for them," and then give examples. And then we would all rewatch and go, "Oh, yeah. There's one. And there's another." I'm gonna be willing to put money on those clues being completely absent in Bones. And I'm with Liz, also - the "weird hyperlogical scientist" is an overdone stereotype, and what they did last night was imply that Zach's lack of normal human emotions made him weak-minded. Nevermind that Zach has never been shown to lack emotions - quite the opposite, in fact. He doesn't understand human behavior a lot of the time, yes. Not the same thing. And, really, do we then think that people with Asperger's or other autistic spectrum disorders are easy targets for serial killers? As for the Spock reference, I'm just gonna say that the reviewer clearly doesn't understand Vulcans at all. Spock was not "emotionally unbalanced". He was emotionally controlled. Again, lack of emotional display does NOT equal lack of emotion. (Just ask our resident Vermonters.) And the Vulcan logical system actually works like real logic. It includes the dictates of ethical and moral considerations, despite the fact that these are variable and thus not entirely rational. There ain't a Vulcan out there (a sane one, anyway) who would have thought this was an acceptable and logical behavior pattern for Zach. If they were going to draw on a cliche about human behavior, I would have found the lack of fixed identity in the youngest child of supersib families more convincing: I've known a hell of a lot more youngests of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12... siblings who were gullible and had a sketchy relationship with reality than single minded amoral scientists. As in: I've not known the youngest of five or more who didn't have some issues about shaping their identity to gthe strongest personality in the room, and I've yet to meet a single-minded amoral scientist who didn't let that persona slip when faced with real personal ethical choices. Julia, and I know/have known a heck of a lot more of the former than the latter, over the years.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 11:13:49 GMT -5
Post by Sara on May 20, 2008 11:13:49 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? After sleeping on it, I see it more as a cautionary tale for writers: don't get so hung up on your story outline that you ignore the way the story is actually developing.Julia, not that I've ever outlined anything beforehand, including testimony on EISes and twenty-five page term papaers, because my brain prefers to do the outline after the first draft. *coughJKRowlingcough*While I totally agree with Rachael and others who suspect a review of the season will provide a marked absence of foreshadowing clues, I feel like it's worth noting that the actor playing Zack was told he was the apprentice when they returned from the strike to shoot the final episodes of the season. So he, at least, might have been bringing that awareness to his performance. Whether the writers laid any kind of similar groundwork is another matter entirely...
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 11:21:59 GMT -5
Post by Pixi on May 20, 2008 11:21:59 GMT -5
Nah, still not buying it. TV Guide guy can retcon it all he likes, but it's like this: If this were Joss, we'd have been all pissed off, but then Erin or an Erin-equivalent would pop in and say, "Actually, there were clues all season long, if you were looking for them," and then give examples. And then we would all rewatch and go, "Oh, yeah. There's one. And there's another." I'm gonna be willing to put money on those clues being completely absent in Bones. And I'm with Liz, also - the "weird hyperlogical scientist" is an overdone stereotype, and what they did last night was imply that Zach's lack of normal human emotions made him weak-minded. Nevermind that Zach has never been shown to lack emotions - quite the opposite, in fact. He doesn't understand human behavior a lot of the time, yes. Not the same thing. And, really, do we then think that people with Asperger's or other autistic spectrum disorders are easy targets for serial killers? As for the Spock reference, I'm just gonna say that the reviewer clearly doesn't understand Vulcans at all. Spock was not "emotionally unbalanced". He was emotionally controlled. Again, lack of emotional display does NOT equal lack of emotion. (Just ask our resident Vermonters.) And the Vulcan logical system actually works like real logic. It includes the dictates of ethical and moral considerations, despite the fact that these are variable and thus not entirely rational. There ain't a Vulcan out there (a sane one, anyway) who would have thought this was an acceptable and logical behavior pattern for Zach. Thank you for pointing out the flaws in the comparison to Spock argument. I thought them, was about to write them and then just mentally gave up.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 11:52:09 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 20, 2008 11:52:09 GMT -5
After sleeping on it, I see it more as a cautionary tale for writers: don't get so hung up on your story outline that you ignore the way the story is actually developing.Julia, not that I've ever outlined anything beforehand, including testimony on EISes and twenty-five page term papaers, because my brain prefers to do the outline after the first draft. *coughJKRowlingcough*While I totally agree with Rachael and others who suspect a review of the season will provide a marked absence of foreshadowing clues, I feel like it's worth noting that the actor playing Zack was told he was the apprentice when they returned from the strike to shoot the final episodes of the season. So he, at least, might have been bringing that awareness to his performance. Whether the writers laid any kind of similar groundwork is another matter entirely... Yeah, the actor knew, which means the last few episodes may yield some differences in Zach's behavior that we could peg to. Ultimately, though, I think they deliberately left out the appropriate "clues" in order to make the reveal more surprising. Thing is, that's just weak writing. A really good writer would be able to include clues that most people just let slide, but which are suddenly huge in our minds when the reveal happens - such that we don't feel cheated. I was thinking, on the way here, that Joss loves a good mindfuck as much as anyone, but with Joss, it's a nice, slow mindfuck that you can't help but enjoy despite yourself. The Bones writers went with the "Wham, bam, thank you ma'am" approach to mindfuckage.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 11:56:02 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 20, 2008 11:56:02 GMT -5
Nah, still not buying it. TV Guide guy can retcon it all he likes, but it's like this: If this were Joss, we'd have been all pissed off, but then Erin or an Erin-equivalent would pop in and say, "Actually, there were clues all season long, if you were looking for them," and then give examples. And then we would all rewatch and go, "Oh, yeah. There's one. And there's another." I'm gonna be willing to put money on those clues being completely absent in Bones. And I'm with Liz, also - the "weird hyperlogical scientist" is an overdone stereotype, and what they did last night was imply that Zach's lack of normal human emotions made him weak-minded. Nevermind that Zach has never been shown to lack emotions - quite the opposite, in fact. He doesn't understand human behavior a lot of the time, yes. Not the same thing. And, really, do we then think that people with Asperger's or other autistic spectrum disorders are easy targets for serial killers? As for the Spock reference, I'm just gonna say that the reviewer clearly doesn't understand Vulcans at all. Spock was not "emotionally unbalanced". He was emotionally controlled. Again, lack of emotional display does NOT equal lack of emotion. (Just ask our resident Vermonters.) And the Vulcan logical system actually works like real logic. It includes the dictates of ethical and moral considerations, despite the fact that these are variable and thus not entirely rational. There ain't a Vulcan out there (a sane one, anyway) who would have thought this was an acceptable and logical behavior pattern for Zach. If they were going to draw on a cliche about human behavior, I would have found the lack of fixed identity in the youngest child of supersib families more convincing: I've known a hell of a lot more youngests of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12... siblings who were gullible and had a sketchy relationship with reality than single minded amoral scientists. As in: I've not known the youngest of five or more who didn't have some issues about shaping their identity to gthe strongest personality in the room, and I've yet to meet a single-minded amoral scientist who didn't let that persona slip when faced with real personal ethical choices. Julia, and I know/have known a heck of a lot more of the former than the latter, over the years. See, that I could have bought. Had they tried to sell it at all. I even could have bought the "Iraq trauma" bit, had there been a decent sales pitch. Dave, also, insists that Zach isn't nearly the most socially awkward member of the team - he awards that title to Brennan. He says the only reason she's more socially successful than Zach is because she's prettier. Zach, to use just one example, has a better filter for his true-yet-rude observations about people than she does. I guess her obvious emotional ties to other people are what's supposed to make us think she's more "normal" than Zach. And it's interesting...youngest sibs are very rarely bench scientists, in my experience. If I take a quick mental survey of all the scientists I've ever known, I wind up with more than 90% eldest sibs, and the rest are usually the younger of two.
|
|