|
Bones
May 20, 2008 11:56:22 GMT -5
Post by Squeemonster on May 20, 2008 11:56:22 GMT -5
*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. Damn, now I need a cigarette. ;D
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:29:28 GMT -5
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 20, 2008 12:29:28 GMT -5
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. You're including onlies in "eldests?" Younger sibs (think Stephen Colbert, who is, I think, 10 of 11?) are actors, lawyers, politicians, HR managers... I saw one paper that insists that more than half of true bisexuals are youngest siblings. Youngest siblings in supersibs tend to have more social skills and manipulate their social environments more successfully than do elder siblings. So Zach is unconvincing from the get-go, or at least such an extreme outlier as to be an example of the inadequate writer's fascination with cheap characterization. Julia, hey, I only watch it for the Bones-Booth-Cam snark, really
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:37:04 GMT -5
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on May 20, 2008 12:37:04 GMT -5
*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. Well put. Joss, master of the seductive mindfuck.I mean, look at S6 of BtVS. Willow turned out to be the Big Bad, and I, for one, was shocked and appalled. But looking back at the season, there were plenty of clues, even if we didn't see them/didn't want to see them, at first. I had almost no sleep last night because it was too hot, but I had a bit of a nap this morning, and their "big reveal" - still doesn't work for me. I wouldn't even consider this a mindfuck, more like an anvil over the head. We, the great and powerful writers have decreed. This is how it is. WHOMP. At least it's generating discussion.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:40:25 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 12:40:25 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. Word! Son of word!! Return of the son of word!!! Oh wordy mcword word word!! I could possibly have bought a longer, more detailed story arc that delved into how his experiences in Iraq (which they could slowly have let us in on) caused him to either snap and do something out of character (although I still don't believe he'd become the puppet-protege of cannibal man) or ultimately led him to some "this must change/end" act of violence or mayhem. But the current Zach as "weak-minded follower" guy who is somehow convinced to just be the assistant to this loser serial killer? No way dude. No way!!
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:41:25 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 12:41:25 GMT -5
See? I told you it wasn't Zach! And y'all didn't believe me, and now to prove it wasn't Zach, they had to go blow off his little Zachy fingers! **pets Rachael, who was obviously in the same place as me, blithely posting away as the ep progressed and confident that there were not going to do something as massively stupid as they did**
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:43:12 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 12:43:12 GMT -5
BWAHHHHHHHHH! A graphic novel. ;D Lack of puritan modesty. LOLOLOL! This interaction between Booth and Bones during his bath was priceless! Thing is? They're an old married couple, without the marriage. ;D Heeee! True! And which is so often the classic pattern for partners doing the kind of work they do.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:47:08 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 12:47:08 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. **nods a lot** Now if he'd come back and started working with some person or group doing violent protest against something he'd encountered in his service, or something like that? Possible. But the "logical steps" that Bones walked thru to point out where he'd gone wrong? Not plausible! Yep. And there were at least several other ways I can think of off the top of my head that they could have twisted the story to accomplish both dramatic season ender requirements and to explain the actor leaving the show that would have, you know, made sense for the character they'd created!
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:52:18 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 12:52:18 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 can grant them issues due to a shorter season. But I find it hard to deal with a virutal absence of any clues whatsoever. Yes, make it suspensful. But suspense is only on the front end. The story must make sense when one looks back and can spot the moments that were there but unnoticed at the time. I remain unconvinced as well. I'll still watch the show, 'cuz I do like other things. But I'm cranky.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:54:18 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 12:54:18 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? Label it "undeveloped" rather than underdeveloped and you may well be right. But the un-ness of that statement lets you know I feel like we can't really know, because I think they didn't show it to us.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:59:44 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 12:59:44 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. I wonder at why they didn't take the opportunity to make comparisons earlier in the season. I mean, they had the story of Bones' dad's trial. They could have taken just a moment or two to make connections between Booth's sniper experiences and Bones' dad's history and bring in a tiny flashback or reveal of some experiences Zach had in Iraq. They could still have wonderful mis-direct away from him being a killer by emphasizing that he was generally hurting emotionally, emotional wounds compared to physical, etc. etc. So that in this ep we'd have been thinking of that when his hands were injured and they still could have had their "surprise" ending.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 12:59:49 GMT -5
Post by Sara on May 20, 2008 12:59:49 GMT -5
Lola? Your "word/son of word/return of the son of word" post totally cracked me up.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 13:03:08 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 13:03:08 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!!! ;D I've got to give you a "sing it, sister!" for this.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 13:05:59 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 13:05:59 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. Yep. I understand wanting to keep their surprise element, but it still has to be workable. I will put part of it down to the strike, as it certainly rushed their storytelling. But I still think there were ways they could have used to both surprise and yet give us the subtle clues that can be spotted when looking backward. Booth pretty indeed. Especially naked in a bathtub with a comic book and a beer hat.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 13:10:02 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 20, 2008 13:10:02 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. Yes!! They did not make his logic, well, logical! And it should at least have seemed logical until pulled apart or Zach wouldn't have bought it in the beginning. Completely and totally yes. Not to mention, this killer doesn't appear to be attempting to make change, or leaving any polemics or anything like that. Loony cannibal loner loser is what he is and that was the puppet-master who convinced Zach to do his bidding? I think not!
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 13:11:17 GMT -5
Post by Sara on May 20, 2008 13:11:17 GMT -5
From an interview with Eric Millegan in the Lansing State Journal:
"When I first found out, I was like, 'That's ridiculous!' " said Millegan, 33.
Then he agreed it's possible: Zack takes pride in being ruled by logic; he fell for the Gormogon notion of killing a few people to help the many.
|
|