What about Bartholomew?

[Paper Gangsta 6,693]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

The character was 100% unnecessary though. When you bring in a character and make him the centerpiece in crucial scenes of one episode and then fail to do anything with it then that is just a waste of screentime so it's not defendable in either case.

mind watching finale before making judgements? he might play big role in finale perhaps

[Schwerk 6,811]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

The character was 100% unnecessary though. When you bring in a character and make him the centerpiece in crucial scenes of one episode and then fail to do anything with it then that is just a waste of screentime so it's not defendable in either case.

I know right? Maybe he was just there for the sake of a murder house flashback and to make the Countess seem more human/sensitive? Too bad if this would not have closure in some way.

 

 

 

[Prismatic 4,789]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

The character was 100% unnecessary though. When you bring in a character and make him the centerpiece in crucial scenes of one episode and then fail to do anything with it then that is just a waste of screentime so it's not defendable in either case.

I mean, Niell Patrick feels pretty irrelevant when appeared on Freak Show. 

[Didymus 33,832]

3 minutes ago, Paper Gangsta said:

mind watching finale before making judgements? he might play big role in finale perhaps

That wouldn't sway me, honestly. It's like the rape monster hyped in the first episode and then we didn't see or hear from him again for like nearly the entire season only to find out he had even less importance than anyone could've ever imagined. Or those damn kids in the school that y'all were saying would have major importance and then just died for no reason.

When you bring in a new character just to keep your other characters moving and then ignore him for the rest of the episodes then that already shows your writing sucks. If he suddenly plays a big part in the finale then the writing isn't any less ridiculous or chaotic, so even if he does, I think my judgment is pretty well made: it's a plotline that goes nowhere. If it had been going somewhere, they would have let him appear much later into the season so that he wouldn't be dragged into the finale all of a sudden, 80% of the viewers already having forgotten about him. That's not a proper way to set up a narrative.

[Nino 12]

7 minutes ago, Prismatic said:

I mean, Niell Patrick feels pretty irrelevant when appeared on Freak Show. 

I completely forgot about him untill just now  

[andy232000 9,582]

44 minutes ago, Didymus said:

The character was 100% unnecessary though. When you bring in a character and make him the centerpiece in crucial scenes of one episode and then fail to do anything with it then that is just a waste of screentime so it's not defendable in either case.

Bartholomew was never a central piece to the series and never formed part of any storyline, but just cause he starred in one episode only it doesn't mean it wasn't necessary or a waste. By that logic then all recurring characters would become lead roles 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Not everything has an ulterior purpose. Some characters or subplots are introduced to develop other ones. Often they are not addressed, because their purpose has been served.

Every show has these. Many times writers that attempt to resolve them all end up rushing the resolutions that fall short of what should have had happened. Sometimes they are best left to the watcher's imagination. Considering AHS is a horror show, you can see the point of it. 

As they say, the unseen is seldom less horrifying than the actual thing. 

[Didymus 33,832]

47 minutes ago, andy232000 said:

Bartholomew was never a central piece to the series and never formed part of any storyline, but just cause he starred in one episode only it doesn't mean it wasn't necessary or a waste. By that logic then all recurring characters would become lead roles 

The only way to test if a character is necessary is to ask yourself: what did it add? What did it add to the season? What did it add to the narrative? Could the character easily have been removed without a real impact on any of the character's movements?

I honestly can't answer those questions with anything sensible except for the last one: yes. Writing a good script is about making sure that everything has a purpose and that everything you write adds to the narrative. Everything else is a distraction that weighs down the screenplay. This is actually the professional outlook and I did a year (granted, only a year but it was enough) of film school and I was literally taught this: anything that doesn't add to the narrative development should be discarded.

I agree that a character can show up, do something important and then disappear, but in this case that doesn't apply. In the case of Bartholomew, the viewer was presented with an introduction. We saw where the character came from, we saw what it could do, we saw the danger of it breaking out (that's called a set-up) and we saw its mysterious character at the end, the episode climax where we saw its face.

All of that is set-up material. But then he never showed. So literally everything you did is a waste and it's just a way to carry the story further without really having anything happen that was central to anyone's storyline. 'cause really, it wasn't central and it could've been easily removed and no one would've cared or felt like something was missing. That's bad writing. And again: even if he appears again in the finale, it's still bad writing for the reason I mentioned above.

43 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Not everything has an ulterior purpose. Some characters or subplots are introduced to develop other ones. Often they are not addressed, because their purpose has been served.

Every show has these. Many times writers that attempt to resolve them all end up rushing the resolutions that fall short of what should have had happened. Sometimes they are best left to the watcher's imagination. Considering AHS is a horror show, you can see the point of it. 

As they say, the unseen is seldom less horrifying than the actual thing. 

Well, agreed, but what subplots were developed by Bartholomew? What did we gain? What did we learn? What did its presence add to the next episodes? Absolutely nothing. That's a problem. And that's the problem I'm talking about.

I mean, sure about keeping things to the viewer's imagination but in this case that's not even an option. Bartholomew is just in his room, the end. We know he's dangerous but nothing's happening. The end. We know the Countess loves him as a child, but then again, she also has those other kids she loves and apparently she loves them more than Bartholomew, so again: what's the relevance? What do we gain as viewers?

That's just my pov and I think it's legit.

[andy232000 9,582]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

The only way to test if a character is necessary is to ask yourself: what did it add? What did it add to the season? What did it add to the narrative? Could the character easily have been removed without a real impact on any of the character's movements?

I honestly can't answer those questions with anything sensible except for the last one: yes. Writing a good script is about making sure that everything has a purpose and that everything you write adds to the narrative. Everything else is a distraction that weighs down the screenplay. This is actually the professional outlook and I did a year (granted, only a year but it was enough) of film school and I was literally taught this: anything that doesn't add to the narrative development should be discarded.

I agree that a character can show up, do something important and then disappear, but in this case that doesn't apply. In the case of Bartholomew, the viewer was presented with an introduction. We saw where the character came from, we saw what it could do, we saw the danger of it breaking out (that's called a set-up) and we saw its mysterious character at the end, the episode climax where we saw its face.

All of that is set-up material. But then he never showed. So literally everything you did is a waste and it's just a way to carry the story further without really having anything happen that was central to anyone's storyline. 'cause really, it wasn't central and it could've been easily removed and no one would've cared or felt like something was missing. That's bad writing. And again: even if he appears again in the finale, it's still bad writing for the reason I mentioned above.

Well, agreed, but what subplots were developed by Bartholomew? What did we gain? What did we learn? What did its presence add to the next episodes? Absolutely nothing. That's a problem. And that's the problem I'm talking about.

I mean, sure about keeping things to the viewer's imagination but in this case that's not even an option. Bartholomew is just in his room, the end. We know he's dangerous but nothing's happening. The end. We know the Countess loves him as a child, but then again, she also has those other kids she loves and apparently she loves them more than Bartholomew, so again: what's the relevance? What do we gain as viewers?

That's just my pov and I think it's legit.

there is still one episode left, and i think bartholomew will play a big role with The Countess cause to me, i think he is the only way she can escape the hotel forever. The Countess wants to be loved, but the only remaining "true love" is him. so he could still be quite important to her liberation. if not, then yes he is a waste of a character, but no points are valid as of now until the finale

[Didymus 33,832]

16 minutes ago, andy232000 said:

there is still one episode left, and i think bartholomew will play a big role with The Countess cause to me, i think he is the only way she can escape the hotel forever. The Countess wants to be loved, but the only remaining "true love" is him. so he could still be quite important to her liberation. if not, then yes he is a waste of a character, but no points are valid as of now until the finale

Well, I still think his placement is the season is clumsy and counterproductive if what you're saying is true. He should've been placed much later in the season then, to build up tension. Now all the tension surrounding him is lost. That's a waste and there's simply no other way to call it.

In any case, I'm very curious for the finale and we'll discuss this again in a few hours, I guess

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

33 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Well, agreed, but what subplots were developed by Bartholomew? What did we gain? What did we learn? What did its presence add to the next episodes? Absolutely nothing. That's a problem. And that's the problem I'm talking about.

I mean, sure about keeping things to the viewer's imagination but in this case that's not even an option. Bartholomew is just in his room, the end. We know he's dangerous but nothing's happening. The end. We know the Countess loves him as a child, but then again, she also has those other kids she loves and apparently she loves them more than Bartholomew, so again: what's the relevance? What do we gain as viewers?

That's just my pov and I think it's legit.

1) Horrifying baby spawn with implications of being born as an incomplete child. That is pretty horrifying on its own. It doesn't help that it's actually sentient and moves around.

2) Humanizes the Countess and shows that she actually has feelings towards children. Before Bartholomew, we didn't know about her relationship with the kids. How many people were surprised how hesitant she was to have to essentially drain her kids to death to get better in the penultimate episode? It's because they didn't actually think about the implications of Bartholomew such as yourself.

3) Connection with previous AHS series. Call it fanservice. It's not as if that doesn't make people happy.

[Didymus 33,832]

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

1) Horrifying baby spawn with implications of being born as an incomplete child. That is pretty horrifying on its own. It doesn't help that it's actually sentient and moves around.

2) Humanizes the Countess and shows that she actually has feelings towards children. Before Bartholomew, we didn't know about her relationship with the kids. How many people were surprised how hesitant she was to have to essentially drain her kids to death to get better in the penultimate episode? It's because they didn't actually think about the implications of Bartholomew such as yourself.

(I ditched #3 'cause I haven't watched any.)

#1 is basically meaningless.

#2 is interesting. Though I disagree with the humanizing aspect (the whole Flicker episode did that just perfectly). The children thing is already a bit odd to me. We knew she cared about the children when we were explained why she abducts them. Bartholomew wasn't necessary to enforce that. And in fact, the surprise of the Countess not wanting to drain her children works just fine on its own. You could easily argue that it's even better had we never seen Bartholomew or her love for him, because like you said: her act of hesitance in the last episode is actually diminished because we've seen her care for Bartholomew.

So sure, you can explain your way around it, but to me it still feels laughably clumsy. If the goals were to humanize her and to show her relationship with children, there were obviously better ways to do it than to introduce some mysterious character that was actually meaningless in itself, or at least for the majority of the episodes. Scenes with her and the (neglected in a screentime sense) abducted children could've been developed to a much greater effect to reach those goals, esp. because like I said, the children she tries to spare in the last episode feel like furniture too - we don't see them enough to feel like the Countess' connection with them is worthwhile.

[andy232000 9,582]

9 minutes ago, Didymus said:

(I ditched #3 'cause I haven't watched any.)

#1 is basically meaningless.

#2 is interesting. Though I disagree with the humanizing aspect (the whole Flicker episode did that just perfectly). The children thing is already a bit odd to me. We knew she cared about the children when we were explained why she abducts them. Bartholomew wasn't necessary to enforce that. And in fact, the surprise of the Countess not wanting to drain her children works just fine on its own. You could easily argue that it's even better had we never seen Bartholomew or her love for him, because like you said: her act of hesitance in the last episode is actually diminished because we've seen her care for Bartholomew.

So sure, you can explain your way around it, but to me it still feels laughably clumsy. If the goals were to humanize her and to show her relationship with children, there were obviously better ways to do it than to introduce some mysterious character that was actually meaningless in itself, or at least for the majority of the episodes. Scenes with her and the (neglected in a screentime sense) abducted children could've been developed to a much greater effect to reach those goals, esp. because like I said, the children she tries to spare in the last episode feel like furniture too - we don't see them enough to feel like the Countess' connection with them is worthwhile.

honestly, i feel you just overthink everything and every character too much to the point you convince yourself they are bad after setting a bar that no writer will reach.  i think bartholomew was not the best addition, but it was cool to see. just ignore him if he´s that useless to you, and enjoy the finale.  

[Didymus 33,832]

Just now, andy232000 said:

honestly, i feel you just overthink everything and every character too much to the point you convince yourself they are bad after setting a bar that no writer will reach.  i think bartholomew was not the best addition, but it was cool to see. just ignore him if he´s that useless and enjoy the finale.

I don't overthink things.. I just enjoy a well written show. Maybe for some people "it's just cool" is enough to get by, but it's not for me, that doesn't make me an overthinker though imo.. I don't like to be suggested that I need to ignore certain things because they don't really matter and they're just there for fun. That's not the kind of show I appreciate 'cause I don't like my time to be wasted as a viewer. Things can be cool and fun and meaningful.

I can assure you that plenty of movies and tv shows perfectly meet my standard.

[andy232000 9,582]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

I don't overthink things.. I just enjoy a well written show. Maybe for some people "it's just cool" is enough to get by, but it's not for me, that doesn't make me an overthinker though imo.. I don't like to be suggested that I need to ignore certain things because they don't really matter and they're just there for fun. That's not the kind of show I appreciate 'cause I don't like my time to be wasted as a viewer. Things can be cool and fun and meaningful.

I can assure you that plenty of movies and tv shows perfectly meet my standard.

i didnt mean to be salty with you and sorry if it came off like that, but i dont appreciate your tone either. if you feel you wasted your time as a viewer, then its as simple as stop watching. the things that you consider "just for fun" are not necessarily to the writers or me, or some viewers, and this conflict you feel for the show is merely yours