gwenyn28 - Tumblr blog

[gwenyn28]

Eddie Diaz - army medic

Disclaimer: First of all – this post is in no way to be seen as military propaganda. This is not to excuse anything that happened irl. This post has the sole purpose to explain some background concerning military rules etc. and to state some facts. Because sometimes I stumble across posts on social media about Eddie’s time in the army and about his character concerning his military past. I just have to shake my head over what I have to read in these posts because there is some misinformation going around.

Therefore, I decided to explain things, giving some kind of deep dive into the military part of Eddie’s character.

So, this post is just for information and informational purpose only. It is not to be seen as anything else.

Let’s get it started then.

There are two big points that are often talked about.

1. Soldiers wear guns and they use them all the time. 2. Soldiers have to follow orders blindly.

At least that is what I found most of the times. If there is anything else you want an explanation for, hit me up with an ask and I try my best to answer it properly.

1. Soldiers wear guns and they use them all the time.

This is not an easy thing to explain. So, I need to give out a lot of background information. I hope it isn’t boring because this goes into military politics and law and stuff…

On April 4th 1949 after WWII the North Atlantic Treaty was signed and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded. Until now, in 2024, 32 nations are part of this organization, including the U.S. as one of the founding nations.

In this treaty there are several rights and obligations written down. Every nation that is part of the NATO has to abide by this agreement and has to follow these points.

Next to the NATO there is the United Nations Organization (UNO or UN), a coalition of 193 states. While the NATO is a defence alliance to protect freedom and security for all their members, the UN is an alliance to keep peace and to ensure the continuation of human rights. To do that they sometimes have to use military means to, for example, help after natural disasters. You might have seen them, their “soldiers” are called “blue beret” as UN peacekeepers.

Nonetheless, even if the goals of both organizations might vary, there is one thing they have in common – the international humanitarian law. This is partly written down and agreed upon in the North Atlantic Treaty. The foundation for this law are the Geneva Conventions among others (the Hague Conventions or the “Laws of war”/ “jus in bello”).

The international humanitarian law, based on the Geneva Conventions, is a set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflicts. People who are NOT participating in these conflicts are protected by it. It is also for restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to those who DO participate (e.g. prohibition of torture).

To be able to differentiate between these two groups of people concerning military personnel the terms “combatant” and “non-combatant” are used. The definition for these two terms is also written down in the international humanitarian law.

Combatants are people who are authorized to participate directly in any conflict. Non-combatants are members of the armed forces whose duties do not include fighting. (The term is also fitting for civilians who do not participate. If they do participate as civilians, they are called illegal/unlawful combatants.)

Let’s concentrate on the non-combatants because they are important for my further explanation.

Non-combatants are military personnel who do not fight. The international humanitarian law states that neither they have the right to actively participate in any conflict nor that it is allowed to attack them (their non-combatant status protects them).

The Geneva Conventions state explicitly who falls under this definition of non-combatants – including medical personnel.

To recognize them there are several signs we all know – the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal. These are protection symbols that are kept pretty simple so that everyone can recognize them and if needed can be improvised easily.

In conclusion: Medical personnel wear these protection signs to show that they are non-combatants.

Now, what about the use of any weapons? I stated earlier that they do not actively participate in any conflict. But why do they carry weapons if not to use them? It is actually a good question. Normally you would see this as a disagreement with the former stated rules for them. But in fact, it is not that simple. Yes, they carry weapons and they know how to use them. But they do NOT use them to fight. Or attack. The international humanitarian law gives them the permission to use them to defend themselves or other against attacks in breach of international law.

What does that mean exactly? Medical personnel carry weapons to defend themselves or their patients from people attacking them. They are NOT allowed to attack. They just have them for their own and their patient’s protection/defence.

To sum it up after this detailed explanation and to come back to the original topic of this post…

Eddie Diaz is an army medic. Means, he is a non-combatant in the conflict he has been in. He carries a weapon to protect and defend himself, his comrades (who are also non-combatants) and his potential patients.

So, he is not an aggressive soldier, fighting and shooting like a mad man. When we saw him in the show, he was using his weapon to defend and save himself and his comrades. Like he is allowed to do by law.

People might ask though “why was he in a helicopter at first then, flying into an active war zone if not to fight?”.

Okay, another explanation time.

Usually, medical personnel are stationed in different locations and areas during a conflict. There is a so called “role” system.

role 1: immediate lifesaving measures, often provided by comrades that are with you when you get injured (self aid or Buddy aid) at the point of injury (battlefield)

role 2: advanced trauma management and emergency medical treatment, often handled by real medical personnel (not at the battlefield but close by)

role 3: medical treatment facility (e.g. military hospitals) that is staffed and equipped to provide care to all category of patients, still overseas but quite far away from any combat action

role 4: medical care based in the home country

Depending on what job and training you have, you can find yourself in any of these “roles”. For example: if you are a lab worker, it is very likely that you are stationed in a role 3 hospital or role 4 back home while if you are an emergency doctor you are probably stationed in a role 2 facility.

Let’s come back to Eddie Diaz again. He is a trained army medic. That means he is no doctor but he is a trained paramedic, trained for emergencies. So, it makes sense that he would be around a “role 2” situation, so to speak. But he was in a helicopter, what does this mean then?

“Role 1” situations happen at the battlefield, at the front row. These people that are injured need to be taken care of. They need to be brought back to a role 2 facility and later on to a role 3 hospital. So, there are people needed to transport them, hopefully combat medics that can take care of them during transport.

Most of the times, especially in an active warzone, it is not that easy to transport them with a truck or car due to landmines, IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and in particular - time. If people are wounded, they need to be taken care of asap. A ground-based transport takes time due to attacks, bad road conditions etc.. So, it is easier to use an aircraft, hence a helicopter. This is called “Forward AirMedEvac” (Forward Aeromedical Evacuation). With a helicopter you are able to fly in, get your patient and fly out, quick and usually without any bigger problems.

Back to Eddie. He was an army medic in a Forward AirMedEvac. Unfortunately, their helicopter was hit and they crashed.

(Just a short side note as information: In Afghanistan the protection signs like the red cross were used as a target and the others shot at them on purpose to lower the morals of any troops because… if the medics are down, the common soldiers get insecure because their backup safety system is gone.)

All in all, with this information we can say:

Eddie Diaz is an army medic and not an active participant in the conflict as a non-combatant. He was in the helicopter to do his job to save comrades and help them. When they crashed, he used the weapon to defend and protect himself and the others around him.

So, people who are saying that he is walking around, shooting, fighting, being a soldier through and through, are wrong. I think I explained it detailed enough what his role in the military was.

Therefore, up to the second point which will be a bit shorter, I promise.

2. Soldiers have to follow orders blindly.

In principle, this is right. Soldiers have to follow orders because in the military there is a hierarchy that exists for several reasons.

Although, you also cannot see this just as black and white. Like “follow an order or else”. You have to differentiate there as well.

Insubordination is covered under Article 19 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This article covers disobeying LAWFUL orders as well as disrespectful language or even striking a superior. The key word here is “lawful”.

This means if your superior gives a soldier a lawful order, they have to follow it. For example: if you are told to walk left or to clean up a truck or whatever. That is rightful and you have to do it.

The more important part is – if your superior gives you a UNLAWFUL order, it is not called insubordination and you don’t have to follow it. For example: if a superior orders you to kill someone it is still illegal and you do not have to do it.

I want to point out that even if soldiers live in a hierarchical system, they are still people who can think for themselves. Yes, there might be a few who do not and who blindly follow ANY order. But these are not the rule.

Concerning the aforementioned article, it is needed for any soldier to question their orders to see if they are lawful or not. They are protected if they are not, the person cannot be called out or punished for insubordination because it is no insubordination if they do not follow an unlawful order.

So, concerning Eddie and his military past and the statements that he would follow blindly any order given to him, it is just plainly wrong. Eddie has shown that he disobeys orders quite often. Not because they are unlawful but because he thinks different and that he knows better.

Yes, he might follow orders from his captain when they are right and concern the job like “Diaz, you do the rope rescue” or “Diaz, you run into this burning building to save people”. But just because he was a soldier, he would not follow blindly any order his captain would give him just because it is/was an order.

Because soldiers are people and can still see the difference between lawful and unlawful. Eddie would not follow anything a superior told him if he thinks it is wrong just because he was a soldier and “they do this all the time without questioning”.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hope I could shed some light especially on the “Eddie is a soldier and therefore a bad guy” thing. Like I said, if you want to know anything else, just ask and I try to answer.

[gwenyn28]

The "real" reasons why these actresses left 9-1-1

Because it is a common accusation Buddie fans have to deal with I wanted to talk about the reasons why the female love interests for Buck and Eddie left the show.

I already talked about it on twitter but due to a limited space I couldn't post links and go deeper into the stories. Therefore I will talk about this a bit more on here.

I will admit that there might have been some fans out there who were really mean and acted weird/rude towards these women. But still... there are real reasons for leaving the show, not "the Buddie fans bullied them and they couldn't handle it anymore so they left".

Connie Britton (Abigail Clark)

When 9-1-1 started in early 2018 Connie Britton was part of the main cast. She was casted as the dispatcher "Abigail Clark" so that the viewer could have not only the firefighter's view but also the dispatcher's. After an incident at a rollercoaster where Buck lost a person Abby looked up his number to ask if he was okay. They started to talk and soon after got into a relationship.

To begin with, her contract was just for one season and she left when her contract was up. Ryan Murphy said in an interview that they were renogotiating her deal because she loved the cast and wanted to come back for a couple of episodes (what we later got with the train wreck in the season 3 finale). But just as a guest star, not as a main cast again. In the meantime, for that dispatch connection, Jennifer Love Hewitt as Maddie Buckley (now Han) was cast.

It was also the plan NOT to bring her back in season 2 so that Buck could grow on his own and that this growth won't be connected with Abby anymore. After all, they just had a brief relationship and she left him at the airport and ghosted him afterwards.

(Source)

So, all in all, she was just supposed to be there for one season only. She didn't want to have a longer contract because she prefers to work just for one season of any tv show. And because she and Ryan Murphy are good friends, he agreed on this, wanting her appearance on his new show in 2018 to help him get the series off the ground.

(Source)

Tiffany Dupont (Ali Martin)

Buck and Ali met in season 2 during an earthquake where she was rescued by him and Eddie. Later on they met again and started to date. When Buck was crushed by a ladder truck and severely injured she broke up with him afterwards in the hospital. She told him that she couldn't live with him being in danger and that he wanted to continue with this risky job after his leg would be better again.

Tim stated in an interview 2019 that he loved Ali but she wasn't his first choice. Because she had chemistry with Buck and Eddie he decided to bring her back for Buck. Their relationship would have to go through the "make it or break it" because she knew that Buck's job was hard and dangerous and Ali wasn't a first responder. So, it had to be decided if she could live with that or not. In the end Tim wanted to keep her as an option for the next season as he reintroduced her but the relationship didn't make it.

(Source)

Megan West (Taylor Kelly)

Megan West was already one of Buck's former hook-ups who was introduced in an earlier season but came back in season 4 and 5 to play Buck's love interest. The possibility to give her a bigger role was there due to Jennifer Love Hewitt being on maternity leave. Therefore her character could get some screen time and she got a whole backstory.

Kristen Reidel, showrunner at that time, stated in an interview the inevitability of the couple's separation because of the people they were. Their characters were the complete opposites and even though sometimes opposites attract this didn't happen with Buck and Taylor. The break-up was the only logical conclusion.

Since Taylor's story arc came to an end with this break-up and the narrative of the show didn't demand another independant character, Megan West left the show after her story was told.

(Source)

Annelise Cepero (Natalia Dollenmeyer)

At the end of season 6 Buck met Natalia, a death doula, and started to date her. It seemed as if they had a connection (a weird one, but still a connection) and so she was Buck's girlfriend at the time season 6 ended.

In an interview mid-March Tim Minear said that he wasn't really interested in going down the road with Natalia when he took over again from Kristen Reidel as previous showrunner for season 5 and 6. He decided that it was time for Buck to stop talking about death, it was boring. He wanted Buck to live some more and to pursue joy. Buck should finally find happiness.

It seems like it was not just a creative decision. Not only storywise Tim decided to break up Buck and Natalia over hiatus. Annelise is based in New York. After the end of season 6 there was the writer's strike happening and season 7 was postponed. During that prolonged hiatus she got a contract on Broadway for "Hotel Happy" that premiered in February 2024. Therefore she couldn't join 9-1-1 again.

And since Tim was also fine with her not coming back storywise... it was mutual for her not to return.

Gabrielle Walsh (Ana Flores)

Gabrielle Walsh was a guest star and played Ana Flores, Eddie's love interest. When they first met when she was Chris' teacher, they really didn't get along. But later on, in the "Jinx" episode, Eddie asked her out and they started dating.

In an insta video (uploaded on youtube) she stated that she liked being on the show and that she loved her role, praising all the cast members. She admitted that she was sad to go but in the end everybody deserved to be with who they really loved. Some people interpreted this as a comment towards Buddie because directly afterwards she also talked about the Buddie fans and that there are no hard feelings concerning them, that she loved them.

Edy Ganem (Marisol)

Edy Ganem played Marisol and was brought in last-minute. She was kind of a hardware store fling for Eddie in the season 6 finale. Back then nobody knew if 9-1-1 would be renewed (or taken over by abc) so Kristen Reidel wanted to give every character a partner and love interest in some kind of closure if the show had ended back then. Marisol who was introduced earlier on on a call seemed to be a fit for Eddie in Kristen's eyes.

Coming to season 7 she was not planned to come back at first because Eddie was supposed to start dating Tommy Kinard. But then, as already stated above, Annelise Cepero wasn't able to come back as Natalia. This would have left Buck without a storyline. So Tim decided to switch from Tommy dating Eddie to Tommy dating Buck. Edy Ganem was free and could come back as Marisol for season 7 to play Eddie's love interest because Tim Minear didn't want both Buck and Eddie without a partner.

In an interview in April 2024 he stated that he had no clue about Marisol and her character. (She doesn't even have a last name.) He didn't want to give her screentime to explore the character and went with what he had. Or better, what Kristen gave him - the nun storyline. The idea was amusing to him and he thought it would help to learn more about Eddie.

In the end Marisol didn't stick around. She didn't even get a proper on screen break-up, just vanished after the end of the Vertigo storyline for Eddie.

It might have to do with the actress behind the character. She showed her true self more than once, posting trans- and homophobic things on social media and kind of victimized herself. Therefore it was a win-win to let her go after season 7, story- and personwise.

In conclusion: I read it very often that people say that the actresses left just because they were harassed by Buddie fans. Like I said in the beginning, there might have been some fans that have acted that way.

But the reasons I listed above where the cause for them to leave or not to return to the show - other obligations, wrapped storylines etc. And not just because "Buddie fans were mean to them".

[gwenyn28]

Debunking the „Invisible Strings“ Theory and more

Invisible strings – who hasn’t heard about that in any fandom? The true love. Faith. Soulmates. A forever kind of anything. This is what every fan wants for their favorite ship, right? Especially when it is two characters who have a built up. Share a story.

And if this theory turns into more, into the aforementioned “soulmatism” after these two characters got together, who wouldn’t be head over heels for it?

In my former post I explained some basic screenwriting rules, especially the “Show don’t tell” one. You can read it here if you want to.

Because there was and still is a big discourse in the fandom about the “They are made for each other and they are their endgame” I want to look at a few things concerning these theories and what happened on screen through the lens of the “Show don’t tell” rule.

Let’s start with the biggest part and what is mentioned in the post’s title.

The Invisible String Theory

To understand what I am talking about I will give you a short summary what this theory is about.

“Buck and Tommy are connected through invisible strings. Tommy left the 118 and Buck joined, taking his place metaphorically speaking and also literally speaking because he now sits at Tommy’s former seat at the 118’s dinner table. Later on, on a call where there was a big gas leak and a house was almost exploding (Eddie was inside with a kid, hiding in a bathtub) Chimney who was off duty at that time called Tommy to help. Tommy flew past that call to spill water all over the place and Buck looked up, watching his future boyfriend. There is also a connection through the episode “Buck actually” where Buck met Thomas and Mitchell, an older gay couple, who died together. Mitchell and Buck talked a bit about love and Mitchell said the famous phrase “You don’t find it, son, you make it.” Connecting this to Tommy due to the name of Mitchell’s love (Thomas) and because Tommy’s favorite movie is “Love actually” (said in one of the ‘Begins’ episodes).”

So, these are the main points for the theory. If I forgot any detail, I apologize. But it wouldn’t change that much about my interpretation if the summary had more details.

First of all: I could quite easily debunk and kind of nip this whole theory in the bud with one big point. Tommy coming back for season 7 was a last-minute decision. He was not the first choice so this thing between him and Buck being planned years ago? The seed being planted back then? Doesn’t fit.

Tommy (as a love interest for Buck) was kind of plan c (?) if I recall it correctly.

First idea was to bring back Lucy Donato. She can fly a helicopter (we saw that in the bridge rescue in season 6). Her not being available due to the actress’ new show was a last-minute thing. It can be seen on the form Hen submitted at Harbor. In the form the name of the requested pilot is “Lucy Donato” and not “Tommy Kinard”. That shows that the switch was not planned early and kind of made last-minute. If Lucy would have been brought back as an old new love interest for Buck, we will never know.

Second problem was that Natalia’s actress was also unavailable. Her character and Buck were in a relationship at the end of season 6 and this would have lasted into season 7. But instead, due to the lack of availability, they broke up over hiatus and she was never mentioned again. Therefore, Buck was without a big storyline and without a love interest. Because Tim, the showrunner, had it already in mind that Buck would and should realize some things about his sexuality (Buck has always been queer/bi-coded and Oliver has played and/or decided to play him like that) they decided now would be the right time. Buck’s story arc wouldn’t need that much time and so it could fit into the shortened season.

To get Buck to this realization that he could be attracted to men as well as women, there was a catalyst needed. Tim said in one of his interviews early on in season 7 that he didn’t want to invent a completely new character for that. Therefore he “recycled” an old one – Tommy. To give Buck an entry-level relationship that he can explore this new side of him a bit. But he also said that it wouldn’t be anything more than that. Even Lou, Tommy’s actor, stated the same in an interview he gave that Tommy was kind of the practice round for Buck.

And don’t mind that Lou mentioned in the same interview that Tommy was first brought back to be a love interest for Eddie but then they switched it to Buck, probably because to the reasons above.

To sum this part up:

Tommy being Buck’s soulmate and this being the plan in the long run doesn’t make sense when you look at the way of decision making.

But okay, benefit of the doubt. Let’s still look at the theory in detail.

Buck joining the 118 and sitting in Tommy’s seat

Mitchell’s husbands name

Episode title vs. “Love, actually”

I admit that these three things could be interpreted as something with a deeper meaning. But it could be also interpreted as nothing. Let’s dive into the screenwriting for a moment.

Like I said before it is quite essential to “Show don’t tell”. These three points might be big in the part of that ship’s fandom but the casual viewer doesn’t remember any of that. If it had been important and the show had wanted to lean into the theory they would have used some narrative devices. Like flashbacks. For example:

The moment Buck learns that Tommy’s name is Thomas we could see a short flashback to Mitchell and Thomas and the conversation Buck had with the former. Or another flashback where Tommy sits at the table and then fades and Buck sits down in the same spot. So that the general audience would make this connection. That they would have their “oh” moment, realizing that Tommy and Buck are really connected on a deeper level and made for each other. Or at least that there is something more to their relationship.

But we don’t see any of that. Just the hardcore fans remember the episode “Buck, actually” actually. Because for us these moments with Mitchell are so important and a valid part in a lot of fanfics on both sides. The casual viewer? They probably won’t even remember the episodes they watched three weeks ago. An episode that aired in 2018? Well… just no.

Buck looked up at the plane

For this point I will take off the screenwriter’s hat again because I can explain it without any screenwriting rules.

We know that Tommy is a helicopter pilot who works at Harbor. He also was a pilot in the army. I am sure that not many people know that but if you are a pilot doesn’t mean that you can fly anything that goes up into the air.

Imagine the same with a driver’s license. Just because you got your license for a normal car you are not automatically able to drive a truck, a tank, a motorbike, a bus etc. Most vehicles need special licenses so that you are able to drive them.

And the same goes for anything that flies. Tommy is able to fly a helicopter and he has a license for that. But being able to fly a plane? Okay, screenwriter’s hat on again because I noticed that I need this for the next few sentences. It is possible that a person has more than one license. And Tommy could be one of them, being able to fly a helicopter AND a plane. But again. We don’t know and nobody told us that he can. We know him as the helicopter pilot. Connecting him to the plane? To make this connection someone would have to mention it on the show that the audience can see “Oh, Tommy flew that plane and saved them all”. And screenwriter’s hat off.

Chimey said that he called Tommy for help and I totally believe he did that. Because Tommy is connected to people who can help with air support. So, it was Chimney’s obvious choice to ask him. But it makes more sense that Tommy asked someone else to fly that plane to help instead of flying it himself due to the aforementioned license thing.

And if we now think that it’s more likely that someone else flew that plane, the theory that Buck looked up to see his future boyfriend flying in to save him (and others) makes no sense anymore. (And yes, I ignore the point that kind of everyone was looking up because there was a damn fucking plane coming to the rescue and nobody says that the pilot is Bobby’s soulmate… or Hen’s… or any of the other people who were around back then.)

I think I properly explained why the “Invisible String Theory” might be a nice fandom created idea but it makes no sense in the long run, realistically speaking on a tv show level. Too many things don’t add up and make no sense storytelling wise.

Let’s hop on to other things in that context.

2. The whole “Evan” thing

Fans and the general audience alike know what kind of relationship Buck has with his given name. He never says he hates it. But he shows it more than once or it is shown that his chosen name holds a special place in his heart, and not his given name.

Buck talks with his parents as they visit him at the station. When his father calls him “Evan” Buck interrupts him and tells him that his name is Buck. People who know him call him “Buck”.

When Buck is down after the I think the warehouse fire Athena talks to him and cheers him up. She gives him a pep talk and ends it with “That’s what being Buck means to me.”

In the coma episode coma!Bobby and coma!Buck talk before Buck realizes that he should escape this coma dream. It is about his name as well. That he is Buck. And not Evan.

There are a few other examples, I just listed the three most obvious ones, I think.

In conclusion we can say that Buck prefers this chosen name over his given name for several reasons. He accepted being Buck and not just Evan.

Now Tommy comes in and calls Buck Evan all the time. We even know that Lou has been told to just call Buck Evan as Tommy and not Buck. Why could that be?

People are saying that Buck reclaims his name, being called Evan is him being more mature. Or even that it is something special because only Tommy is allowed to call him Evan. But are these really the reasons? I doubt it.

We know that Buck has a complicated relationship with his name as stated earlier (family issues etc.). Why would he all of a sudden want to reclaim this name, to show him being more grown up? After the lightning strike and the follow up coma we saw him already grown up. Grown into the name, being comfortable with being Buck. Because being Buck is enough. Why would he all of a sudden decide that now he wants to be called Evan again after the audience has already experienced his growth in season 6 where he feels good as Buck, not Evan? And even if he wanted to be called Evan now for reasons, why would he not tell everyone to switch the name?

From a screenwriter’s perspective it is quite simple. Tommy being the only one calling him Evan is important. But not in the way people think it is. Not because it shows a special connection or because of a deep bond. On the contrary. Remember the phrase Buck said to his father. “People who know me…” It is more of a “Tommy doesn’t know Buck” thing. With this simple action the general audience notices that something is off between Tommy and Buck. Because the audience knows Buck’s preference and some might even remember all the reasons why (most might remember that it has something to do with his family).

“Language” is a very effective narrative device. Using certain words or how characters talk to each other can deliver a message for the audience. Screenwriters use this device so that they don’t have to actively say something but the audience will still get it. In this case: Nobody has to say that Tommy ignores Buck’s chosen name and that something feels off about it, the audience sees that he does and that it is.

Now people might say “But Buck hasn’t stopped him” and yes, I agree. Buck has not stopped him with the whole “Evan” thing. It could be simply because he still has to get used to his first relationship with a man, exploring stuff etc. Or it could be deeper and be rooted in his abandonment issues, unconsciously scared that if he tells Tommy to change the name that Tommy will leave. And Buck failed another relationship.

There could have been some possibilities to explain this name thing. Like Buck telling Tommy explicitly that he wants to be called Evan. Or Tommy asks Buck about it because he notices that he’s the only one calling him Evan and Buck states that he is okay with it because he likes it when Tommy does (this could have given a nice little look into their relationship and could have been a sweet moment.)

But nothing like that happened. We just hear Tommy call Buck Evan every time he appears on screen. And this is intentional, the intention behind even backed up through the instruction for Lou not to say Buck.

“Show, don’t tell”. Tommy uses the “wrong” name for Buck while the audience knows what Buck prefers. So, it feels off for people who watch the show and we get to see a relationship where both parts aren’t really on the same level.

3. Buck’s big “coming out”

There are people who complain about the way it was shown on screen. They argue that Tommy could have told Buck how he looked. And they are mad at him for that. That it was a forced coming out and that it was a shitty move from Tommy etc.

I don’t agree with that. Because I wouldn’t look that deep into it. In the end this scene had just one purpose - a subtle coming out for Buck. We know that they were already running low on time that episode, cutting of scenes almost worth one complete episode. So, Buck coming out to everyone else besides Maddie and Eddie? Would have taken too much time. The “soot face” scene was more effective and delivered the message to Buck’s friends and the audience. That Buck is out now.

I want to focus more on another part of the hospital scenes. The one when Buck and Tommy kissed. (And no, I don’t want to talk about that it was kind of out of character for Buck to leave Maddie’s wedding to go see Tommy because that is something else to discuss at another time maybe.)

Hardcore fans were happy about this scene and yes, I get it. Tommy promised to be at the wedding and he was. And they kissed. Great. Your ship sailed at that moment. But the moment people went deeper in and romanticized it that Tommy came to see Buck even after he fought a fire, I have to put my foot in.

Let’s put off the shipper’s googles for a second.

Tommy being at the hospital was just for one purpose. That Buck could come out to his friends and that the audience knows that he is out now to everyone and doesn’t have to hide anymore. Nothing else.

Because if we look deeper into it, there are some questions. Tommy works at Harbor. They usually do the air support. Why would he arrive at the hospital with a fire engine in full turn out? If you are on-call duty you usually aren’t for a different job. Compare it to a doctor maybe. If you are on call as an eye doctor you wouldn’t be called in to do a brain surgery. Especially such an expert like Tommy, a pilot, wouldn’t be used for normal fire-fighting that could keep him occupied when an emergency occurs that needs a pilot.

Therefore, him coming in with a turnout full of soot, having just fought a fire, was solely for getting the soot on Buck’s face. Their kiss was to remind the audience that they were still seeing each other even after their failed date and the coffee-date to get out the invite for the wedding.

There was no deeper meaning behind it and the writers used that scene to deliver a subtle coming out without Buck telling everyone.

Interpreting it as “Tommy came to see Buck even if he worked so hard in these past hours” and “he didn’t even go home to clean up himself because he wanted to rush to Buck” is looking too deep into this. (And just to mention, even Buck cleaned up and switched clothes although his sister’s wedding had to be cancelled because the groom was missing and Maddie was going crazy about it. But Buck went and cleaned himself up.)

4. The Bachelor Party

Yes, I know. There is a big controversy about it, especially Tommy’s reaction. Let’s analyze this.

Tommy didn’t dress up even though Buck told him that the party was 80s themed. Instead of just saying that he didn’t have much time and couldn’t find a fitting outfit, he stated “They had Henley’s in the 80s” in a very condescending tone and made somehow fun of Buck and Eddie for their Miami Vice costumes. “What are you, the Wedding singers?” (reference to a movie where the two people who are meant for each other are with the wrong people but that is not the point here).

The point is that Tommy did not put any effort in it. The audience knows how Buck can get with these things. Remember Clipboard!Buck and him being Firemarshal. The audience even saw in the previous scenes how important this party was for Buck. He really wanted to throw it for Chimney and was totally into it.

Tommy reacting so poorly was a mood dampener and we could see that in Buck’s (and Eddie’s) reaction.

Now, people explained that he was on call and that this was why he didn’t dress up. Usually, if you are on call, even as a First Responder (or especially as one), you have to switch into a uniform to work. Doctors, nurses throw on their scrubs, police officers wear their uniform, firefighters theirs etc. He could have easily worn something different. Tommy did not know if he would be called in or not. But he decided against it, wore a Henley and made a joke about Buck (and Eddie) being dressed up.

How can you analyze this from a screenwriter’s point of view?

If they had wanted to establish the relationship between Buck and Tommy further, we would have been shown stuff that would let the audience have another “Oh, they are into each other” moment.

For example: Tommy could have worn something colorful or fun, just a shirt or something and they could have had a sweet little exchange about it. Or he could have explained to Buck in a normal way why he decided to go with the Henley. Or, and that is a major point, he could not have been on call in the first place and could have partied the whole night with Buck (and Eddie, or even without Eddie to give us more couple time). But he did neither of that.

It was an intentional choice to not dress him up and let him even act kind of condescending towards Buck concerning the outfit. It was also an intentional choice to make him leave. Him staying could have shown the two of them in a more relationship way, how they act around each other, how much fun they have together. But the writers refrained from this to a. show the disconnect between Tommy and Buck and b. not to dive deeper into their relationship and to show it to the general audience.

The bachelor party was the fifth scene we saw Buck and Tommy together – the first one at Harbor when they were interrupted by Eddie, the kiss in Buck’s kitchen, their failed date, the coffee date and now the bachelor party.

In none of these scenes the writer’s focus was to establish their relationship. For the audience it is still not really shown what kind of relationship these two have, especially not that it is such a lovely one like some fans claim it to be.

While I mentioned all their scenes until now, I want to go back to one and talk about this one as a last point.

5. Their first date

In episode 7x04 which is completely from Buck’s (unreliable) point of view we got the kissing scene when Tommy asked Buck out for a date. Ignore the “My attention? – I guess.” for a moment even though it probably is important. Remember, anything is intentional and not just because they had no clue what else to write. But this is not what I want to focus on here.

The whole episode was from Buck’s point of view and the audience learnt that Tommy is a lot like Eddie. They have so much in common – the military, Muay Thai, repairing cars etc. The audience learns that Buck seems to like Tommy who is similar to Eddie and that they kind of click.

Now we jump to the next episode and Buck’s and Tommy’s first date and the writer’s intentions switch. While thinking that Buck and Tommy would be a good fit after the last episode the audience now learns that there are differences between the two of them.

I don’t want to excuse Buck’s reaction, the “hot chicks” comment was misplaced. But thinking about it you could at least understand it. He is not out yet, just noticing his attraction to guys a few days prior and is now on a date with a man for the first time… and bumps into his best friend. It is just human that he panics and says something stupid. Still, it was needed that he apologized for that.

Tommy’s actions on the other hand were more than just a bit misplaced. His “closet” comment could have outed Buck in front of his best friend. Luckily, Eddie (and Marisol) was oblivious enough that the comment flew past their heads. Immediately after, Tommy ended the date and ordered himself an uber.

Again. Until then I could explain this by “he is mad at the comment Buck made, feeling like being shoved back into the closet” etc. I would agree. I wouldn’t be on that level myself because I think rudeness shouldn’t be countered with rudeness but okay. Everybody acts differently.

Now, to really end the date, the writers made another intentional choice. They could have shown that Tommy still cares about Buck, that Buck is important to him. They could have made him say something like that Buck isn’t ready and that he understands him but doesn’t want to go back into the closet. Something like that. He could have shown some empathy. He could have explained his want to end the date so that the viewer could relate and understand him.

But instead, the writers chose Tommy not to talk to Buck. Until the moment the uber stopped at the curb, Buck (and the audience) is still thinking that they are going to the movies. Then Tommy abruptly ends the date and drives away while Buck stands alone at the curb, staring at the leaving car. (Concerning his abandonment issues this is kind of heartbreaking.)

Every message, every action Tommy did after Buck’s comment could be explainable on its own. But sum everything up and it leaves the viewer with another off feeling – the closet comment, ending the date without saying so, leaving Buck on the curb.

Even later on when Buck met up with Tommy again at the coffee shop, Tommy did not apologize. I wouldn’t go that far and say that Tommy is gaslighting Buck. But he explains his actions with “You are not ready”. He probably doesn’t see that he did something wrong or that he could have handled the situation better.

The viewer starts to think about that relationship and that they maybe did not click that much like everyone thought at first. Nobody probably thinks that Tommy is a villain here. Just that he is probably the wrong fit for Buck.

There are a few more other scenes between Buck and Tommy and each one of them can be analyzed through the screenwriter’s lens. But probably there won’t be anything new that hasn’t been stated already. So, just a short summary of three scenes that are worth a comment.

During the medal ceremony when Buck is happy about the award (it is obviously his first) Tommy makes a comment – “Enjoy it while it lasts.” This shows another time that they are not on the same level and they don’t really match. Tommy just sees himself and cannot be happy for Buck. Therefore, he makes that slightly deprecative comment and Buck face falls.

While Bobby is in the hospital, being dead for 14 minutes and now in a coma afterwards, Buck is worried sick. Everyone knows that Bobby is his surrogate father. He wants to share this with Tommy who turns it into a joke, not really taking Buck seriously and listening to his concerns and fears. And Buck’s face falls again.

While Hen and Karen try to interrogate Tommy about his intentions with Buck (kind of a shovel talk), he deflects and makes jokes that are misplaced.

If you look at all of these things mentioned above - from the name calling, comments and certain scenes - from a writing perspective you can see that these were deliberate choices. There were enough moments to really establish the blooming relationship. To make Tommy likable.

First, he could have been on screen more so that the audience would see their relationship like we do with all the other couples. For example, like Athena and Bobby dancing together on the cruise ship. Did it add to the storyline per se? No. But it showed them being a couple and in love. There could have been small little scenes like that with Buck and Tommy. But the writers and the showrunner decided not to show any.

And remember. For the general audience things have to be shown that they will be able to relate to the characters and accept things into the narrative. So, if there are no e.g. domestic scenes between Buck and Tommy, nobody will believe they have a sweet little domestic relationship.

Second, the few scenes they had Tommy could have been written differently. Except in 7x04 where we saw the whole story through Buck’s eyes, he was always stiff and condescending, making misplaced comments and jokes. The writers could have given him lines where he e.g. supports Buck after he is worried about Bobby. Or an apology at the coffee date where they both decide to start over. There were many chances to make him a fit for Buck, to give him scenes and lines for the audience to relate to. So that we can see him as the fit for Buck people claim him to be.

But, the show did neither. There was just a limited number of scenes and the lines Tommy had were never really supportive or sweet towards Buck. All in all, the writers went full in with the “Show don’t tell”. They painted a certain picture of Tommy for the audience to understand that Tommy might not be a bad guy but just not a fit for Buck.

And in the end, this is what counts. What is shown on screen and the writer’s intentions with this.

Not what someone comes up with as a headcanon or what people assume happened off screen.

Disclaimer in the end: I just want to say that this post isn’t about the casual part of the fandom. The people who just watch the show, enjoy the ship and are happy about anything. As long as they are respectful and live the “ship and let ship” lifestyle, I am completely fine with it.

This post is more about the hardcore five people who try to shove down these theories and “canon” events as a given we have to believe and accept and “how dare you ship something else???”. People who act superior and think they can be dismissive and condescending and whenever you don’t agree with their point of views you are called names, slurs and a lot of different other things.

[gwenyn28]

Scriptwriting 101

Since there are a few people who really seem to think that a tv show is “just” a tv show I had the urge to explain a few things, especially concerning the writing process and what is seen on the screen.

I am not a screen-/scriptwriter myself but it is quite easy to dig into the world of writing and find the important points when it comes to tv shows and/or media in general.

Therefore, I decided to sum this all up in one post you can pull up whenever somebody tells you that “the curtain is just blue because it’s blue”.

First of all, the writers are writing for the screen. If you write a line about an internal monologue or thought you have to think about what it would look like on screen. Why? Well, that’s quite simple. Because the viewer isn’t able to look into the character’s head to see his thoughts. Therefore, you have to show it. To visualize it, using different narrative devices to do so.

If a character thinks “I don’t like him” but doesn’t want anybody to know, how would you portray this on screen? Maybe with a disgusted face. Maybe with a disgruntled noise. Maybe with a quip. You have to show the viewers this thought. this dislike. Otherwise, you won’t be able to get the message across.

Therefore, one of the most important rules for screenwriting is “Show, don’t tell”.

Usually, you don’t have a narrator who explains everything a character does. Ideally, the audience should be able to pick up on the context from the dialog and action.

For example: It’s not needed to be said that a character grew up as a person. It can be shown in a montage of his past. Or with a well-placed sentence to show this growth.

By experiencing a show, the only kind of information the audience absorbs is what can be seen and heard on screen. And that’s it.

Now people could say “yeah, isn’t this about the curtain then? If it is shown blue, then it is blue, right?”

Well, no. Yes, the curtain is blue. And that is what the audience can see. But the bigger point is to question WHY is the curtain blue. Okay, not everything is really that thought through, at least not the color of a random curtain. But other things might have a deeper meaning and subtext because the writers could not convey their idea/story otherwise.

They have to show some things so that the audience can figure it out what they wanted to tell with what they have shown.

Be it with words that are said or actions like giving a certain character a scene where they act like another character to show how similar they are.

And there comes the next big point. The “Show, don’t tell” rule is very often in correlation with the limited time the writers have for their story/episode. Usually, on tv you have a limited number of minutes for each and every episode. So, every second counts.

If you decide to write a certain part and to keep it in the episode, it has to be important. To show something without explicitly telling it.

So, some scenes might seem random and not important. But believe me, they usually are. Why would you keep something that blocks a time slot in your episode if it was not important for the plot, character growth or characterization in general?

Imagine. You want to write an episode of a show. And you have a general idea about the topic for this episode. You start to line it out, work around it, put life into it. And in the end, you notice that you have written a lot more than what would fit into the episode. What would you cut off? Right. Stuff that does not help the general storyline or the characters.

For example: You have written about a beautiful sunset. The birds are chirping, there’s a slight breeze. You can see a car passing by a park. What would you do? Keep it or cut it off?

Keep it if it is needed to show one of your characters walking around that park to pan in on him with the camera to set the tone for the next scene.

Cut if off if it is just a filler and in no relation with any story or character.

Many scenes are therefore intentional to show with actions or dialog what the writer wanted to convey in that scene. A tv show hasn’t the advantage like a book where every thought, every emotion can be described in detail. It is limited and has to use other methods to keep a storyline up and working.

Coming back to the aforementioned narrative devices. These are writing techniques used in writing in general, not only in media. They are important everywhere.

But let’s look at them from a tv show perspective. I have already explained why it is important to show stuff, mostly using dialog and visuals, so that the audience gets it and the possible subtext/context. Let’s look at how a writer would do it.

Foreshadowing:

This is a way to provide hints on what will happen in a later episode. You could show for example that somebody waits for a call, not being able to reach another person just to find out that said person wasn’t available due to an accident that will be shown at the end of an episode. The audience will then realize “Wow, that makes sense. Because the person couldn’t be reached before.”

Language:

It is always important what kind of language you use. Which words are said and which aren’t, mostly in combination what kind of tone they use. Calling somebody by their dead name and/or mispronouncing them get the point across that this person is a transphobe, for example. There’s no need to tell the viewer that this person is an asshole anymore because the audience already knows. So, the words that are used and how they are used is a vital point for the “show, don’t tell” because it can give a clue about the character or the situation they are in.

Plot devices:

It’s a technique used to move the plot forward. Plot devices can be objects or characters to show a certain character trait or support a storyline. For example, if you have a show and all of a sudden somebody from the past appears, a long-lost sibling maybe, it could be to show the difficult family situation. That sibling might be not important in the long run and could be gone a few episodes later. But it started another storyline and gave some insight to one of the main characters. Or the audience finds out that one of the characters has a relative with mental health issues who just appears in one episode which could be just to explain why a main character acted the way they did when faced with mental health issues in their current situation.

These are just a few storytelling tools that are often used in writing. And they all circle back to the “show, don’t tell” rule. Because if you look at each one of them and the examples I gave? Imagine how the situations would be without showing what I just described.

Would there be the “gasp” moment when you find out about the car accident without these little scenes before or would it be just “oh, car accident, whatever”?

Would it be believable if you have somebody call out another person as a transphobe without words used to show that the person really is?

Would it be understandable to start a new storyline without the long-lost sibling who started it?

No, usually, it wouldn’t.

Now, people could ask again about the “show, don’t tell”. Because why use these narrative devices when the rule is just to show stuff? Easy as that. Because otherwise a story would be boring.

It’s quite essential for a writer to put some tension into a story, to create a plot that hooks the audience (these are narrative devices as well, by the way). So, yeah. Show stuff. But make it exciting. Otherwise, nobody would tune in for the next episode.

This leads me to the next and probably last point.

Tuning in again. You might tune in again because a story is exciting. Yes. That’s one reason. Another one is or at least could be that the audience can relate to the characters. Writers usually give characters certain traits or flaws that the audience would get the feeling that this could be them. And that these characters might be fictional but still human somehow.

Characters don’t need to be perfect. They need to be relatable.

Connecting this with the main rule means that a character and his actions are just shown to give the audience a better feeling for them and who they are. So that they can relate. It’s usually important because if something happens off screen, the understanding might not be there. The audience needs to see things to understand what and why it happened. For example, a break-up offscreen always leaves the question about how and why they really broke up and that could dampen further scenes.

So, in conclusion. If something isn’t on screen it leaves the audience without something to relate to. Some might say that it probably wasn’t something important then and yes, I would agree. But there is also the possibility that something is left off screen on purpose to make the audience wary of a situation of a character because they haven’t seen things with their own eyes.

To sum this all up then:

A tv show doesn’t do stuff just because they can. The writing is intentional because they have limited means to convey their story to keep it exciting and relatable. Otherwise, the audience wouldn’t continue to watch. So, maybe the next time you talk to somebody about a show, think about the possibility that there has been some subtext to it. And not just that the curtain is blue.