Considering the alternative, I'm pretty happy...

Opinion by

heeeresjoyce posted 4 months ago

4.4	by 15 fans
You rated:

Ever since the season 3 finale, there's been quite a few unhappy fans. And there's a good reason, too. One of our most beloved characters, Dr. Zackary Uriah Addy, turned out to be the apprentice to Gormagon. Now he's no longer a main cast member, and he's been sent to an asylum. But considering what I recently found out, this is better than what the writers could've done.

According to Hart Hanson, the writers had two ideas.
One: Gormagon would approach Zack about being his apprentice, but Zack refuses, and Gormagon kills him instead, or
Two: Have Zack be Gormagon's apprentice and then get caught.
They chose the latter, which to me seems merciful...

Of course they could've just kept Zack, but by the end of season 3, a show needs to change. (I think that it was originally oldmovie from the House Spot who said this) If they kept all of the same cast, the show would get too formulaic, too predictable. Each episode would be too similar.

I don't know if many of you knew this already and if it even makes a difference, but to me it does. Hanson said that Zack will most likely be a recurring guest star. They couldn't do that if he was dead. Now, we can at least see our precious Zackaroni every now and then.

URL:

Share this Link

8 comments

	Saul_Mikoliunas said: No offence intended here but if those were the only two options the writers come up with they aren't that good. I know that might sound harsh but it just doesn't make sense, the first option would have made ALOT more sense and of course I am happy that Zack isn't dead but at the same time I'm thinking it would have been a better ending for him than this. He helped a serial killer. He MURDERED somebody. He's insane. Actually thinking about, yeah. I think I would have prefered the death. Although this way we do get to see Zackaroni again, every time we see him I will be thinking "He killed someone. He worked with Gormagon. Leave" Actually no, I will be thinking "The writers really screwed this one up, didn't they!" posted 4 months ago.

	heeeresjoyce said: No offense taken. :) I wasn't expecting that many people to really agree with me, anyway - I just wanted to express my opinion. posted 4 months ago.

	ineedcoffee said: Gormagon could have waited until next season to be caught we would have waited, they honestly didn't give it much thought and it would have been a much better season ending if they would have left it withe bones getting shot and left us hanging over the summer, now they just have a bunch of pissed off fans. posted 4 months ago.

	jwd2007 said: If you all think the writers did not make the right chose in what to do in regarding the ending of season 3. I would have to say that they had only limted time due to the there strike to explain what the hell happen with zack after returning from iraq from the 1st ep. And it makes a great spring board for season 4 because of the way b&b releated to zach in there own way. This ending may not be the best it due to the limeted numbers of epsoides they had to charm as much information about us losing one of the major cast members. Looking forward to season 4. posted 4 months ago.

	heeeresjoyce said: ineedcoffee, they didn't wait till the next season because they needed to change and shake things up a bit. They didn't want to become too predictable. And like jwd2007 said, the writer's strike didn't give them enough time to show us Zack's motivation. Even though they couldn't give us that, we know that Zack is a completely rational person, and since Gormagon had managed to convince him that killing the lobbyist was rational, he killed him. Despite the fact that Zack always seemed like he couldn't harm anyone, if he thought it was right, he'd do it. posted 4 months ago.

	Melissa55 said: As much as I loved Zack, I think that it was the best way for him to go out. It was kind of obvious it was coming because Zack and Sweets were too similar. Not in their personalities, necessarily, but in the way that they were both cute prodigies. (Or at least, they both get my nerd-loving heart going). It would be illogical to get rid of Sweets, because he's a newer, less fleshed-out character. Also, he acts as a good catalyst to Booth & Bones. Zack, however, is a fairly unmysterious character to most viewers. That's why we love him, but also why he was the more obvious target. Also, it's quite fair to say that he always felt like he had to prove himself, whether or not that was the case. He was the perfect personality type to be taken in my the charms of a serial killer and his secret society. posted 4 months ago.

	sunsweetheart39 said: I agree with you, because if Zack, being the person that he is, got convinced that there was a reason for killing someone, he would. The other characters wouldn't, plus they all had more storylines and more reasons to stay on the show than Zack did, as much as I love him. But we still get to see him, and seeing him get killed off would be too sad for me!! posted 3 months ago.

	HannaK said: I've just watched the season final and I'm a little dissapointed because I expected more of the "Gormagon storyline" and I am surprised that Zack was his apprantice but I've never cared as much for Zack (and Camille) as for the rest, I'm just happy that it isn't Hodgins, or even Sweets. I do think that the writers made the right call, I wouldn't want to see Zack dead but I do think that they could've come up with something else. Now I'll just wait for the new season and I hope that we get more Sweets, it would be nice to see him some more because after three seasons, I would like "a change" posted 3 months ago.

Add Your Comment

INAPPROPRIATE	OFFENSIVE	MISCATEGORIZED	DUPLICATE	Don't Report
Notes:

Considering the alternative, I'm pretty happy...

Sign In or join Fanpop to add your comment