I love the fact that Zack is not a murderer, but hold on a second. If he didn't kill the lobbyist and that definitely was NOT Gormogon then who the hell was in that closet jumping out with the knife at the end of Knight on the Grid?
I get that they are trying to make Zack's abrupt apparent change in personality less so than it looked in PitH, but they simply aren't thinking things through and they are contradicting themselves. Zack clearly admitted to killing the lobbyist before, and now he's back tracking? I would have done it if he asked me but I didn't actually do it? Come on guys, pick your fork in the road and then stick with it.
::sigh:: What I wouldn't give for 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
It's sloppy, agreed. I believe this is what's referred to as a retcon. But I'm still thrilled that they're saying he didn't actually kill anyone.
I re-watched the scene between Sweets and Zack and transcribed it for someone else. If you'd like to read it, here it is:
Zack: I haven’t actually done it before, you know.
Sweets: Had sex?
Zack: Ended someone’s life. Why doesn’t anyone ever believe I’ve had sex?
Sweets: You confessed to plunging a knife into a man’s chest.
Zack: No. I said I killed him – which I did; I told The Master where to find the man.
Sweets: But you didn’t plunge a knife into the man’s chest?
Zack: It wasn’t me.
Sweets: Zack, why did you confess?
Zack: I would have done it. If The Master had asked, I would have done it.
Sweets: No, no. You don’t know that. People have no idea if they’re capable of ending a life until they’re put in that situation. In all of our sessions, I’ve had question marks because you, at heart, are not a killer. (Sweets starts dialing his cell.) I gotta, I gotta tell Dr. Brennan this.
Zack: You can’t tell them. Because I’m your patient, and you’re not allowed, ethically.
Sweets: Zack, don’t you want your friends to know that you didn’t kill anyone?
Zack: I’m still an accessory to murder. If you tell them, they’ll take me out of here and put me in prison. Hodgins assures me I would not do well in prison.
Sweets: OK, what about the person that actually did commit the murder? He’s still out there.
Zack: No. The Master killed him. So he could recruit me. There could only ever be two.
Sweets: You have to let me tell the truth.
Zack: You can’t tell anyone without my permission…. We should go in; I don’t want to get you into trouble.
Never heard of it before, but I looked it up. That's totally what it is, but I still don't like it. I guess I'm just too logical. Part of my problem is that I had a lot of trouble with the whole Zack thing because I felt they didn't think it through originally, and I still think they're not thinking things through now.
But thanks for the restatement of that conversation, as I only saw it the once.
Sweets: You confessed to plunging a knife into a man’s chest.
Zack: No. I said I killed him – which I did; I told The Master where to find the man.
Sweets: But you didn’t plunge a knife into the man’s chest?
Zack: It wasn’t me.
This is where I think they're playing fast and loose -- the 'I killed him' line. At the time they meant for us to take it that Zack did the deed himself and we did, as much as we didn't want to. I don't like the backtracking I guess.
And they still don't explain who did it. If Zack was the apprentice and it wasn't Gormogon (we saw the killer in the closet, it definitely wasn't Gormogon) then who was it?
Man, am I over thinking this or what? But sometimes I just wish they'd spend as much time thinking out the details as I know that we do!
Part of my problem is that I had a lot of trouble with the whole Zack thing because I felt they didn't think it through originally, and I still think they're not thinking things through now.
Oh, I totally agree. IMHO, they're trying to clean things up after the fact. I'm POSITIVE this twist wasn't planned when they decided to make him G's apprentice. The problems in logic and continuity are glaring -- but I'm still thrilled they did ANYTHING to make the situation even marginally better -- by stating that Zack didn't kill anyone.
And they still don't explain who did it. If Zack was the apprentice and it wasn't Gormogon (we saw the killer in the closet, it definitely wasn't Gormogon) then who was it?
They're essentially saying it was the previous apprentice, and G. killed him.
You're not over-thinking anything here. When you take a beloved character and turn him into a murderer or accessory to murder, you need to try and get these kinds of details right. Otherwise you're not really selling it in a believable, supported way. Now, different people have different tolerance levels for how much suspension disbelief they're willing to employ; you don't want to abuse that, though. You and I are on the same page. :)
I think it's the writer is us -- we take the time to think things through in great detail and I at the very least, get annoyed when others don't take the same care. Especially when it's their job and I just do this for fun!
This is where I think they're playing fast and loose -- the 'I killed him' line. At the time they meant for us to take it that Zack did the deed himself and we did, as much as we didn't want to. I don't like the backtracking I guess.
sucks to have made us think it all summer, but i still like the plot twist. actually, i like it a lot. because it's both a mature step for zack and appropriate to his sideways thinking for him to accept responsibility for even being part of it. too much responsibility for it? perhaps. but he's not dodging it at all.
This line: Zack: No. I said I killed him – which I did; I told The Master where to find the man.
That would indicate that Zack was working with the Master prior to the lobbyist's death, and that there were two apprentice's at that time. Because the other apprentice actually committed the murder. Then the Master killed him. I think I need to rewatch PitH to see exactly what Zack said about his relationship with the Master. *getting confused*
That would indicate that Zack was working with the Master prior to the lobbyist's death, and that there were two apprentice's at that time. Because the other apprentice actually committed the murder. Then the Master killed him.
That's EXACTLY what the implication is. Hence the sloppiness.
Having not watched the episode at all.... (my reputation as a spoiler hound knows no bounds) and it being 6.30am, I say this:
Gormagon recognized Zack's potential as a better or more useful apprentice than the one he had, and therefore bumped the other one off, after he had killed the lobbyist. It's a little sloppy, but I can live with it if Zack didn't actually kill anyone... god, now I'm retconning myself. It's getting like Torchwood around here (explanation: they literally retcon anyone that sees an alien with an amnesia drug).
somewhat sloppy, because they didn't go into as much depth on it as they could have.
i've thought at great length about what could get zack to that point (i have an in progress fic on the subject that's gonna need major reworking!), and it's my considered opinion that zack would not be an instant convert. he said that the master first approached him at a conference. it's possible that he was in contact with gormogon for a while, having discussions, being brainwashed/indoctrinated, before actually becoming his apprentice. thus he could have given him information helpful to his cause and made gormogon think that he was a better candidate.
I still think they could have made more of the post-Iraq situation. Of course, trying to put 5 episodes into one (thank you strike) is never going to be satisfactory, but at least they have tried to address it in the lateral thinking logic a non-lateral thinking logical person might accept as Zackthink. (oo I invented a word)
And they can try to expand I suppose, but I can't see them welcoming Zack back into the fold, especially as it will probably seem logical to him to kill Sweets. If I tell you I'll have to kill you. + Zack believes he is guilty.
I still think they could have made more of the post-Iraq situation.
i doubt anyone here will disagree with you about that.
I can't see them welcoming Zack back into the fold,
of course they would. they love him, which is why they all go to visit him. not only that, but they know that he feels remorse and realizes that what he did was not the correct course of action. it makes perfect sense to me that they'd want to 'welcome him back to the fold.'
especially as it will probably seem logical to him to kill Sweets. If I tell you I'll have to kill you. + Zack believes he is guilty.
okay, that makes no sense, not even zack sense. he believes that he is partly responsible for the lobbyist's death, he doesn't believe that he actually committed the murder himself. and, as sweets says, he might not have done it if he were there. he believes he's guilty of being an accomplice, not of being an actual murderer.
besides, zack is counting on doctor-patient confidentiality. sweets can't tell.
and come on, when he was an accomplice he thought he was helping the human race. killing sweets to protect himself would be a selfish act, and he's demonstrated that he's a willing sacrifice. he doesn't value his life highly enough to consider a human life an appropriate price for evading prison.
If he didn't kill the lobbyist and that definitely was NOT Gormogon then who the hell was in that closet jumping out with the knife at the end of Knight on the Grid?
It was the apprentice before Zack. The one that Zack said the Master then killed because "there can only ever be two."
Zack clearly admitted to killing the lobbyist before, and now he's back tracking? I would have done it if he asked me but I didn't actually do it? Come on guys, pick your fork in the road and then stick with it.
Yes! That's what I meant by cop-out!
::sigh:: What I wouldn't give for 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
What I wouldn't give for you to have 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
It was the apprentice before Zack. The one that Zack said the Master then killed because "there can only ever be two."
Didn't they already have him in custody by that point? And then he'd already killed himself? I thought that was the apprentice before Zack. That way how they tried to go with Zack killing the lobbyist in PitH.
What I wouldn't give for you to have 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
Didn't they already have him in custody by that point? And then he'd already killed himself? I thought that was the apprentice before Zack. That way how they tried to go with Zack killing the lobbyist in PitH.
I think that's what we thought before, and it was sloppy because we knew it wasn't Zack jumping out with the knife. But now, the guy who killed himself was the apprentice before the apprentice before Zack... or so we are led to believe! Clear as mud?! Yeah, me too!
I think we caring viewers are making three errors: 1. We are expecting a Fox show to be like real life and so, be a linear experience of the time space continuum. Hah!
2. We are trying to understand the workings of a criminally insane cannibal's mind. I don't know many of them.
3. We are too clever to be conned by sloppy writing. Actually, that's the writers' mistake for not knowing there are intelligent adults with memories and expectations of continuity in their audience, Why do we always get suckered?
>>Zack clearly admitted to killing the lobbyist before, and now he's back tracking?
I don't think Zack actually admitted to stabbing the Lobbyist. I don't recall ever hearing him actually saying those words. Caroline was the one who came out and told everyone that he did: "CAROLINE: Zack confessed to killing the Lobbyist – stabbed him in the heart."
He could have very well said that he killed him but never actually said he stabbed him. Caroline could have just added that on.
Zack's logic was correct this time. He may have not stabbed the Lobbyist, but he was still instrumental in his death - hence him killing him.
as a new fan, this has been apparent to me too, watching all the episodes in quick succession. As just one example, in the New Orleans voodoo episode, Bones is perfectly comfortable touching the snake, and sees nothing weird about it, but then in The Mummy in the Maze, she has an irrational fear of snakes.
As just one example, in the New Orleans voodoo episode, Bones is perfectly comfortable touching the snake, and sees nothing weird about it, but then in The Mummy in the Maze, she has an irrational fear of snakes.
Now there's one that I forgot about...good point! I guess I haven't watched it in the last little while so I forgot that one, but now that you mention it... Good call!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 02:47 am (UTC)I get that they are trying to make Zack's abrupt apparent change in personality less so than it looked in PitH, but they simply aren't thinking things through and they are contradicting themselves. Zack clearly admitted to killing the lobbyist before, and now he's back tracking? I would have done it if he asked me but I didn't actually do it? Come on guys, pick your fork in the road and then stick with it.
::sigh:: What I wouldn't give for 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 02:50 am (UTC)I re-watched the scene between Sweets and Zack and transcribed it for someone else. If you'd like to read it, here it is:
Zack: I haven’t actually done it before, you know.
Sweets: Had sex?
Zack: Ended someone’s life. Why doesn’t anyone ever believe I’ve had sex?
Sweets: You confessed to plunging a knife into a man’s chest.
Zack: No. I said I killed him – which I did; I told The Master where to find the man.
Sweets: But you didn’t plunge a knife into the man’s chest?
Zack: It wasn’t me.
Sweets: Zack, why did you confess?
Zack: I would have done it. If The Master had asked, I would have done it.
Sweets: No, no. You don’t know that. People have no idea if they’re capable of ending a life until they’re put in that situation. In all of our sessions, I’ve had question marks because you, at heart, are not a killer.
(Sweets starts dialing his cell.) I gotta, I gotta tell Dr. Brennan this.
Zack: You can’t tell them. Because I’m your patient, and you’re not allowed, ethically.
Sweets: Zack, don’t you want your friends to know that you didn’t kill anyone?
Zack: I’m still an accessory to murder. If you tell them, they’ll take me out of here and put me in prison. Hodgins assures me I would not do well in prison.
Sweets: OK, what about the person that actually did commit the murder? He’s still out there.
Zack: No. The Master killed him. So he could recruit me. There could only ever be two.
Sweets: You have to let me tell the truth.
Zack: You can’t tell anyone without my permission…. We should go in; I don’t want to get you into trouble.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 02:58 am (UTC)Never heard of it before, but I looked it up. That's totally what it is, but I still don't like it. I guess I'm just too logical. Part of my problem is that I had a lot of trouble with the whole Zack thing because I felt they didn't think it through originally, and I still think they're not thinking things through now.
But thanks for the restatement of that conversation, as I only saw it the once.
Sweets: You confessed to plunging a knife into a man’s chest.
Zack: No. I said I killed him – which I did; I told The Master where to find the man.
Sweets: But you didn’t plunge a knife into the man’s chest?
Zack: It wasn’t me.
This is where I think they're playing fast and loose -- the 'I killed him' line. At the time they meant for us to take it that Zack did the deed himself and we did, as much as we didn't want to. I don't like the backtracking I guess.
And they still don't explain who did it. If Zack was the apprentice and it wasn't Gormogon (we saw the killer in the closet, it definitely wasn't Gormogon) then who was it?
Man, am I over thinking this or what? But sometimes I just wish they'd spend as much time thinking out the details as I know that we do!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:13 am (UTC)Oh, I totally agree. IMHO, they're trying to clean things up after the fact. I'm POSITIVE this twist wasn't planned when they decided to make him G's apprentice. The problems in logic and continuity are glaring -- but I'm still thrilled they did ANYTHING to make the situation even marginally better -- by stating that Zack didn't kill anyone.
And they still don't explain who did it. If Zack was the apprentice and it wasn't Gormogon (we saw the killer in the closet, it definitely wasn't Gormogon) then who was it?
They're essentially saying it was the previous apprentice, and G. killed him.
You're not over-thinking anything here. When you take a beloved character and turn him into a murderer or accessory to murder, you need to try and get these kinds of details right. Otherwise you're not really selling it in a believable, supported way. Now, different people have different tolerance levels for how much suspension disbelief they're willing to employ; you don't want to abuse that, though. You and I are on the same page. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:15 am (UTC)I think it's the writer is us -- we take the time to think things through in great detail and I at the very least, get annoyed when others don't take the same care. Especially when it's their job and I just do this for fun!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 05:55 am (UTC)sucks to have made us think it all summer, but i still like the plot twist. actually, i like it a lot. because it's both a mature step for zack and appropriate to his sideways thinking for him to accept responsibility for even being part of it. too much responsibility for it? perhaps. but he's not dodging it at all.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:03 am (UTC)Zack: No. I said I killed him – which I did; I told The Master where to find the man.
That would indicate that Zack was working with the Master prior to the lobbyist's death, and that there were two apprentice's at that time. Because the other apprentice actually committed the murder. Then the Master killed him.
I think I need to rewatch PitH to see exactly what Zack said about his relationship with the Master.
*getting confused*
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:07 am (UTC)That's EXACTLY what the implication is. Hence the sloppiness.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 05:32 am (UTC)Gormagon recognized Zack's potential as a better or more useful apprentice than the one he had, and therefore bumped the other one off, after he had killed the lobbyist. It's a little sloppy, but I can live with it if Zack didn't actually kill anyone... god, now I'm retconning myself. It's getting like Torchwood around here (explanation: they literally retcon anyone that sees an alien with an amnesia drug).
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 12:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 12:23 pm (UTC):)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 05:45 am (UTC)i've thought at great length about what could get zack to that point (i have an in progress fic on the subject that's gonna need major reworking!), and it's my considered opinion that zack would not be an instant convert. he said that the master first approached him at a conference. it's possible that he was in contact with gormogon for a while, having discussions, being brainwashed/indoctrinated, before actually becoming his apprentice. thus he could have given him information helpful to his cause and made gormogon think that he was a better candidate.
no they didn't do it well, but i could see it.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 11:16 pm (UTC)And they can try to expand I suppose, but I can't see them welcoming Zack back into the fold, especially as it will probably seem logical to him to kill Sweets. If I tell you I'll have to kill you. + Zack believes he is guilty.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 11:46 pm (UTC)i doubt anyone here will disagree with you about that.
of course they would. they love him, which is why they all go to visit him. not only that, but they know that he feels remorse and realizes that what he did was not the correct course of action. it makes perfect sense to me that they'd want to 'welcome him back to the fold.'
okay, that makes no sense, not even zack sense. he believes that he is partly responsible for the lobbyist's death, he doesn't believe that he actually committed the murder himself. and, as sweets says, he might not have done it if he were there. he believes he's guilty of being an accomplice, not of being an actual murderer.
besides, zack is counting on doctor-patient confidentiality. sweets can't tell.
and come on, when he was an accomplice he thought he was helping the human race. killing sweets to protect himself would be a selfish act, and he's demonstrated that he's a willing sacrifice. he doesn't value his life highly enough to consider a human life an appropriate price for evading prison.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 02:56 am (UTC)It was the apprentice before Zack. The one that Zack said the Master then killed because "there can only ever be two."
Zack clearly admitted to killing the lobbyist before, and now he's back tracking? I would have done it if he asked me but I didn't actually do it? Come on guys, pick your fork in the road and then stick with it.
Yes! That's what I meant by cop-out!
::sigh:: What I wouldn't give for 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
What I wouldn't give for you to have 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:05 am (UTC)Didn't they already have him in custody by that point? And then he'd already killed himself? I thought that was the apprentice before Zack. That way how they tried to go with Zack killing the lobbyist in PitH.
What I wouldn't give for you to have 5 minutes in the writer's room with those guys to discuss the concept of continuity...
HA! Thanks! :)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:13 am (UTC)I think that's what we thought before, and it was sloppy because we knew it wasn't Zack jumping out with the knife.
But now, the guy who killed himself was the apprentice before the apprentice before Zack... or so we are led to believe!
Clear as mud?! Yeah, me too!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:16 am (UTC)Nope! I'm freakin' lost...
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 05:49 am (UTC)Please! That's another show (Lost) that drives me crazy.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 03:18 am (UTC)LMAO Yup, exactly that. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 11:24 pm (UTC)1. We are expecting a Fox show to be like real life and so, be a linear experience of the time space continuum. Hah!
2. We are trying to understand the workings of a criminally insane cannibal's mind. I don't know many of them.
3. We are too clever to be conned by sloppy writing. Actually, that's the writers' mistake for not knowing there are intelligent adults with memories and expectations of continuity in their audience, Why do we always get suckered?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-25 07:59 pm (UTC)I don't think Zack actually admitted to stabbing the Lobbyist. I don't recall ever hearing him actually saying those words. Caroline was the one who came out and told everyone that he did:
"CAROLINE: Zack confessed to killing the Lobbyist – stabbed him in the heart."
He could have very well said that he killed him but never actually said he stabbed him. Caroline could have just added that on.
Zack's logic was correct this time. He may have not stabbed the Lobbyist, but he was still instrumental in his death - hence him killing him.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-03 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-04 02:34 am (UTC)Now there's one that I forgot about...good point! I guess I haven't watched it in the last little while so I forgot that one, but now that you mention it... Good call!