|
Bones
May 19, 2008 21:11:23 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 19, 2008 21:11:23 GMT -5
This was a strange episode. I'm going to have to re-watch it. Zach being the apprentice still seems unbelievable to me. I'm gonna be cranky and denial girl and call that simply a bad writing choice, to sacrifice character for a sensational plot. The bathtub bit was most excellent! I love how defensive he was, so that by the end he's yelling over the phone about how it's his house and his bathroom and he can do what he wants. I was just as convinced it wasn't Hodgins as that is wasn't Zack. Which makes me batting .500, I guess.
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 21:12:19 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 19, 2008 21:12:19 GMT -5
Rat-fracking mother pusmonkey. That is all. Sing it, brother!!
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 21:14:37 GMT -5
Post by Lola m on May 19, 2008 21:14:37 GMT -5
Onjel and Matthew can also vouch for my having suggested Zack sacrificed himself to be the misdirection well before the actual reveal. Most definitely. A brilliant deduction. ;D Well, Sara is always scary brilliant, isn't she?
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:04:48 GMT -5
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 19, 2008 22:04:48 GMT -5
Rat-fracking mother pusmonkey. That is all. This seems to be the concensus of most of the older part of my flist. Julia, now I have to think about why
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:18:36 GMT -5
Post by Squeemonster on May 19, 2008 22:18:36 GMT -5
So, you're not happy with this result, I take it? ;D I don't think any of us are. Not happy at all! **puts on cranky face** Heck, even if Zack hadn't been a fave character, it's also a bummer because he and Hodgins were so funny in the lab, and I'll miss the banter. Yes, that's one of the things that hurts the most for me.
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:25:50 GMT -5
Post by Matthew on May 19, 2008 22:25:50 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.
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:27:15 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 22:27:15 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!
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:28:12 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 22:28:12 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
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:40:09 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 22:40:09 GMT -5
I am not believing Hodgins is Gormagon. I'm going with Hodgins is too obvious (he handed the container to Zach) and Sweets is still a red herring.
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:54:02 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 22:54:02 GMT -5
I'm sorry; what?
Okay, they've got 13 minutes to get out of this before I cry major foul.
(I'm on DVR delay.)
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 22:54:40 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 22:54:40 GMT -5
Saroyan suspects Sweets, so is that the kiss of death to that theory? Or, is it the right theory and we're going to spend the hour looking for evidence to convince Booth and Bones? Cuz, I can not believe it's Hodgins. No way. Maybe Cam. ;D Hee. Serial killers are almost never women, though. And when they are, they tend to be poisoners. No so much cannibals.
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 23:07:56 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 23:07:56 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.
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 23:10:35 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 23:10:35 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.
|
|
|
Bones
May 19, 2008 23:14:08 GMT -5
Post by Rachael on May 19, 2008 23:14:08 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. Yes! Exactly. Goddamnit, but they've pushed me into the "not sure I'm gonna watch next season" place. And the fact that he sacrificed himself to save Hodgins isn't enough, writers, you hear me? He would NEVER have been that guy. WTF was up with that whole "weak personality" bit? He never seemed to me to have a "weak personality". And no man whose family clearly dotes on him so and who would give up his robot so that a man could have a Christmas present for his little boy falls into the "so logical that he has no real moral underpinnings" category.
|
|
|
Bones
May 20, 2008 0:43:40 GMT -5
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on May 20, 2008 0:43:40 GMT -5
Bad me.
Referring to a post which I had not realized was flocked.
Julia, having a very very stupid week.
|
|