The Walking Dead

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:59 am

Defence21 wrote:It's not "mindless," as you put it. Sure, it has flaws, some of which easily can be pointed out -- but who cares? One of my favorite parts of watching the Walking Dead is the mindful discussion I have with my wife, friends, and co-workers after each episode dissecting why things happened, what they are leading to, etc. Like literature, there's a lot of this show that is open for individual interpretation. That's not common with most TV shows, and that's a big part of what sets the Walking Dead apart from other shows -- and precisely what makes it quite the opposite of "mindless."


Defence21 wrote:Stop looking for perfection. Start looking for entertainment. If it doesn't satisfy, stop watching.


these are somewhat contradictory ideas. on one hand you're saying it's worthy of deep analysis. on the other hand, you're saying to stop taking the show seriously.

"mindful" discussion of the show itself (not even including how bad glen mazzara and the writing in general has been in the past) would include the following topics:

-wow, andrea is terrible
-are we supposed to hate lori, or is this an accident?
-why would this character do that? that makes absolutely no sense (repeat this about a dozen times per episode)
-gee, i wish some of these characters would develop. i have no idea what i'm supposed to be feeling about anyone.

...or can you only talk about the good things? and yeah, it can be pretty "mindless" when they spend a season plus doing nothing to advance the characters and just want to pander to people who want to see shiny objects (in this case, zombie kills).

there are plenty of shows that are garbage and not worth watching. you don't see me writing in the TV thread about "Dads" or whatever other schlock is out there. the walking dead has potential to be great, and has shown signs of it in the past. do you think we should give up on something, just because it's hit a rough patch? is it not more noble to give something a chance to redeem itself? and you didn't hear much whining about this season up until sunday, so this idea that people just want something to complain about is getting really tiresome.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,239
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Defence21 on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:26 am

shmenguin wrote:
Defence21 wrote:It's not "mindless," as you put it. Sure, it has flaws, some of which easily can be pointed out -- but who cares? One of my favorite parts of watching the Walking Dead is the mindful discussion I have with my wife, friends, and co-workers after each episode dissecting why things happened, what they are leading to, etc. Like literature, there's a lot of this show that is open for individual interpretation. That's not common with most TV shows, and that's a big part of what sets the Walking Dead apart from other shows -- and precisely what makes it quite the opposite of "mindless."


Defence21 wrote:Stop looking for perfection. Start looking for entertainment. If it doesn't satisfy, stop watching.


these are somewhat contradictory ideas. on one hand you're saying it's worthy of deep analysis. on the other hand, you're saying to stop taking the show seriously.

"mindful" discussion of the show itself (not even including how bad glen mazzara and the writing in general has been in the past) would include the following topics:

-wow, andrea is terrible
-are we supposed to hate lori, or is this an accident?
-why would this character do that? that makes absolutely no sense (repeat this about a dozen times per episode)
-gee, i wish some of these characters would develop. i have no idea what i'm supposed to be feeling about anyone.

...or can you only talk about the good things? and yeah, it can be pretty "mindless" when they spend a season plus doing nothing to advance the characters and just want to pander to people who want to see shiny objects (in this case, zombie kills).

there are plenty of shows that are garbage and not worth watching. you don't see me writing in the TV thread about "Dads" or whatever other schlock is out there. the walking dead has potential to be great, and has shown signs of it in the past. do you think we should give up on something, just because it's hit a rough patch? is it not more noble to give something a chance to redeem itself? and you didn't hear much whining about this season up until sunday, so this idea that people just want something to complain about is getting really tiresome.

I guess it's contradictory...but it can be argued either way.

The show itself breeds an environment for people to discuss what's going on, why it's happening, why people are acting as they are, what they will do next, would you do that, should you do that? In other words, it's a commentary on society and how loosely or tightly we are tied to our morals. But that's just one theme that runs throughout the show. When I say mindful discussion, I'm talking of something completely different than critique. I'm not talking about the quality of acting or the slow-developing plot -- I'm talking about the the thoughtfulness of what the show is really about. When you take a literature class and analyze a book, you don't talk about the misspelled words, the length of paragraphs, etc. You talk about what really is happening. Unfortunately, for what is one of the best shows on TV that actually provides us with readily-available, mindful content to discuss, many discussions, specifically here, are reduced to complaints about the delivery.

You can talk about whatever you want and watch whatever you want. I don't really care. I'm not the show police. I just don't understand why people waste their time not only watching, but then complaining about, something. You call what's going on in the Walking Dead a rough patch, but yet you say how the show spent a season plus doing nothing to advance characters and just pander to the crowd. That seems like more than a rough patch. It seems like you have a major problem with the show. If that's the case, why watch? I'm genuinely curious.

You say my post asking why people watch the show only to complain is tiresome. Think how people who come here looking for legitimate discussion feel when they're met with things like "The dude who plays Rick is pretty much a hack."
Defence21
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,796
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby columbia on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:29 am

He's a terrible actor.

I can enjoy the show - which I do, hence me starting this thread - and acknowledge that at the same time.

But pardon the interruption, you may continue with your deep literary analysis.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 45,407
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Defence21 on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:36 am

columbia wrote:He's a terrible actor.

I can enjoy the show - which I do, hence me starting this thread - and acknowledge that at the same time.

But pardon the interruption, you may continue with your deep literary analysis.

Thanks. I appreciate that.
Defence21
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,796
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:41 am

it's legitimate to discuss the acting abilities of cast members. this thread isn't solely about the world within the fiction. but FWIW, i don't have a problem with any of the acting at the moment (except for this new person from last week).

it was a very long rough patch, so i get why you might want to assign it a different label. i was ready to give up on the show at the end of last season (like i've done with other shows i have a history with like true blood). but they got rid of glen mazzara, so i wanted to give the new show runner a chance. i can't state enough how much damage mazzara did to this show. he was astronomically incompetent. i enjoyed this season up until last week. so whatever my motives for sticking with it were, it paid off - which should give a conclusive answer any time someone wants to play the "why do you keep watching?" card in the future. simply put: because there's a chance it will get back on track, and it has a good enough foundation that keeps me wanting that to happen.

and plot development is part of the thoughtfulness of the show. like with all fiction, you should expect a thoughtful story arc where characters grow. that should be part of your water cooler talk, if it isn't already. and it's certainly part of any literature class or whatever. and on a related note...in "Julius Caesar", if they just cut out his eye at the end instead of killing him like they had intended, then you'd be talking about the baffling character motives in class the next day. it's all part of analysis. don't know why people think that stuff doesn't matter.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,239
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby SolidSnake on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:43 am

Defence21 wrote:
JiriSlegr wrote:I've read the comics, but I think the show suffers from an overall lack of strong writing. Some of it is good, some of it is great, but the majority of it is stock shlock there to keep the viewers coming back. Which is sad, because the flashes of greatness are awesome....but only come along once or twice a season.

I enjoy watching the show for what it is: mindless entertainment. It could be more, but I'd say that the Walking Dead is a show cursed with extremely good ratings. Which is insane, right?! Ratings are good and mean money! Except that it's money, and that opens the door for producers poking their fingers in places where they don't belong.

Producer: Hey guy that directed the number one movie on the IMDB top 250 list, I know you created a show that's making us lots of money and has insane viewership, but how about...you make us more money. As in, less zombies (who wants to pay extras?). As in, interior shots and green screens. And outdoor shots on vacant lots that we own (forcing characters into one stagnant place for extended periods of time). Who cares if it makes no sense for the story to stay in one place so long? Stretch it out! And you know what else? We want more screen time with the characters that people want to see (you know, the ones that fans scream about at conventions). You don't agree with that, Darabont? You're fired! And we'll bring in someone that will do what we say.

And season 2 happens...

You have a bunch of writers writing stories that someone else thinks are awesome and will make money and suddenly the characters are unlikable (mom's that keep forgetting they have a son while constantly searching for another woman's lost daughter). They all stay in one place, never talking about what should happen next...just sitting in the southern sun...while the insects drone. And doing stupid relationship things because of sex.

All while committing the worst sin in good writing: becoming repetitive. They talk about the same things again and again. They are selfish and create problems that don't exist. And as a result, viewers lose interest.

Wait--what happened? People aren't loving this? They loved the zombies? But that costs money...and well...what do we do?

You kill the characters that you turned to **** to force a redemption story.

Lori's the worst mother ever and changes her mind every other line? Done-zo.

Dale wants to leave the show--oopsie.

We turned Andrea, the most amazing character from the comics, into a complete idiot? Let's have her say she tried and blow her brains out.

Introduce the governor and create a bad guy. Things get exciting again! The guy's a good actor, and the governor is truly evil.

But not really that evil. I mean, he acts evil. And we say he's evil. And make him look evil. Like stare into the distance evil. And he kills characters that the audience doesn't know, so that makes him evil. You know.

But we can't kill him. I mean, ratings. Keep him alive and we can force even more conflict!

At the end of the day TV is about money. These are people trying to make lots and lots of money and the WD crew are doing it extremely well. And I watch it, and I enjoy it, so I can't complain too much. I just wish it was a show that stuck with the vision that we all saw in that first season. Instead, it's more of a week to week show that might be good and might be really really terrible.

See, this is the problem, though, really. The show gets huge ratings because so many people tune in and watch. They're not a victim of their ratings. Their ratings indicate the show's success. It's usually the case that the negative remarks always will be the most vocal -- but you come on here and read nothing but negatives. Stop watching the show if it's that bad. If the writing is terrible, why watch? If the characters are so poorly-developed, why watch? If the acting is so ridiculous, why watch? It's not like we don't have other options in 2013.

The problem is that some people expect absolute perfection, and even then, it likely wouldn't be good enough. It's not "mindless," as you put it. Sure, it has flaws, some of which easily can be pointed out -- but who cares? One of my favorite parts of watching the Walking Dead is the mindful discussion I have with my wife, friends, and co-workers after each episode dissecting why things happened, what they are leading to, etc. Like literature, there's a lot of this show that is open for individual interpretation. That's not common with most TV shows, and that's a big part of what sets the Walking Dead apart from other shows -- and precisely what makes it quite the opposite of "mindless."

Stop looking for perfection. Start looking for entertainment. If it doesn't satisfy, stop watching.



All of this, the fact that some are so harsh ridiculing every little detail is over the top. There's some things I don't like either but I'm gonna talk about the good things more then ridiculing the bad things.
SolidSnake
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 19,052
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:41 pm
Location: Winners don't use drugs.- William S. Sessions.

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:51 am

so when you read JiriSlegr's account of what's happened with this show, doesn't it frustrate you on some level? much of his post isn't even opinion. it's well documented that AMC chose to get rid of an iconic genius in order to save money and gain control over their flagship show (the only successful show that they own the rights to, by the way). the artistic quality suffered, but they were able to pump in their copious zombie kills, which is what really brings in ratings. nickelback was a successful band, afterall.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,239
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Defence21 on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:55 am

shmenguin wrote:it's legitimate to discuss the acting abilities of cast members. this thread isn't solely about the world within the fiction. but FWIW, i don't have a problem with any of the acting at the moment (except for this new person from last week).

it was a very long rough patch, so i get why you might want to assign it a different label. i was ready to give up on the show at the end of last season (like i've done with other shows i have a history with like true blood). but they got rid of glen mazzara, so i wanted to give the new show runner a chance. i can't state enough how much damage mazzara did to this show. he was astronomically incompetent. i enjoyed this season up until last week. so whatever my motives for sticking with it were, it paid off - which should give a conclusive answer any time someone wants to play the "why do you keep watching?" card in the future. simply put: because there's a chance it will get back on track, and it has a good enough foundation that keeps me wanting that to happen.

and plot development is part of the thoughtfulness of the show. like with all fiction, you should expect a thoughtful story arc where characters grow. that should be part of your water cooler talk, if it isn't already. and it's certainly part of any literature class or whatever. and on a related note...in "Julius Caesar", if they just cut out his eye at the end instead of killing him like they had intended, then you'd be talking about the baffling character motives in class the next day. it's all part of analysis. don't know why people think that stuff doesn't matter.

This helps a lot, actually. With the new showrunner, Walking Dead has taken a distinctive turn for the better this season, so your patience has paid off.

As for plot development, etc. being part of the thoughtfulness of the show, I agree. Maybe my struggle with much of the complaining is that, when I read a book and the plot is going nowhere in my eyes, or I hate the development (or lack thereof) of characters, I generally move along and forget about the book. Maybe that's not an apt comparison, as books aren't as "easy" to pick up as a show is to turn on and watch, and so therefore it's easier to put down a bad book with potential than it is to stop watching a bad show with potential. But this is where I struggle to understand why many (not you, necessarily, as I now see your mindset) watch and commit to a show they have so many fundamental issues with. Again, if the acting is bad, character development is bad, and plot movement is bad, what is left?

Anyway regarding your Julius Ceasar reference, I think you might be misinterpreting some of what I've said. I actually like the discussion of the Governor and what his motives are. I understand that many don't like the direction it's going (and you know that I am one of them). But it's interesting to dissect and try and decipher what really is happening. It might not be the best writing, but there's a lot more to discuss than just saying "I hate the Governor's character, they never developed him last season and now they're throwing him on us with layers to peel, which is stupid." The Governor is human. He made some evil mistakes in the previous season. Does that make him evil? Is he just a product of the environment? Was he evil in his previous life? What is leading him to do what he does?
Defence21
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,796
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby shmenguin on Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:03 pm

i suppose, if i'm on this TWD redemption kick, i should be saying, "let's see if the new guy can make up for mazzara's mistakes with the governor". so i'll try to keep an open mind. as much as i wouldn't mind if they gave him the disappearing russian mobster pine barrens treatment from the sopranos, i get that they kinda need to resume his story.

but the way they're doing it by sacrificing the momentum they've built with the other characters...not good. and i truly think it's due to AMC not wanting to pay their actors. you could have easily sprinkled this governor thing in with the main plot. it would give us time to acclimate with new characters and also stretching it out would make his redemption more meaningful. we learned everything we need to know in one act on sunday. that's weak.
shmenguin
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,239
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:34 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Defence21 on Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:06 pm

shmenguin wrote:so when you read JiriSlegr's account of what's happened with this show, doesn't it frustrate you on some level? much of his post isn't even opinion. it's well documented that AMC chose to get rid of an iconic genius in order to save money and gain control over their flagship show (the only successful show that they own the rights to, by the way). the artistic quality suffered, but they were able to pump in their copious zombie kills, which is what really brings in ratings. nickelback was a successful band, afterall.

Sure, it's frustrating that AMC is cutting corners financially. But I try not to let that impact my pleasure in watching the show. If I read that AMC fired a highly-successful writer to save cash and went into the show with a prejudice, I wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much. I'm not giving it a chance. Does it suck? Absolutely. Very nice point about Nickelback -- a band that truly gets by on re-writing and performing the exact same song over and over. In one sense, I agree -- popularity does not mean quality. Nickelback is the prime example of this. On the other hand, I am extremely quick to change the station the second I hear a Nickelback song and refuse to waste my time listening.

The facts are out there. AMC has made some boneheaded calls with this show. But it remains a great show -- in my eyes, anyway. I don't watch for the zombie kills or the guts and gore, either. I watch because I enjoy seeing how people change when stuff hits the fan. Again, I can be mad all I want about the behind-the-scenes business moves, but that would just make me prejudice against the show, giving me little opportunity to give it a chance, and make me bitter about everything that happens.

Really, this whole discussion is a reflection of the information age. The more we know about the "behind the scenes" business side, the less enjoyable shows become. I also think there's a direct coorelation between those who complain and those who read the comics. As most will say, few, if any, movies will live up to the quality of the book. In this case, the show can't live up to the quality of the comics. I haven't read the comics, so I haven't been spoiled by what most will say are absolutely amazing creations.
Defence21
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,796
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Defence21 on Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:12 pm

shmenguin wrote:i suppose, if i'm on this TWD redemption kick, i should be saying, "let's see if the new guy can make up for mazzara's mistakes with the governor". so i'll try to keep an open mind. as much as i wouldn't mind if they gave him the disappearing russian mobster pine barrens treatment from the sopranos, i get that they kinda need to resume his story.

but the way they're doing it by sacrificing the momentum they've built with the other characters...not good. and i truly think it's due to AMC not wanting to pay their actors. you could have easily sprinkled this governor thing in with the main plot. it would give us time to acclimate with new characters and also stretching it out would make his redemption more meaningful. we learned everything we need to know in one act on sunday. that's weak.

All valid points. You know from previous discussions that I've never been a fan of the Governor. Him coming back was disappointing to me, and the dedication of an entire episode to him was even more disappointing. I really wanted to see them bring him back, have him wreak havoc on the prison for an episode or two, then get killed off. But, as a stand alone episode -- possibly a preview of what a spinoff might look like -- I felt this episode was pretty solid. I didn't like it in the scheme of this series, but I did like it. It opened the door for a lot of questions to be answered. And maybe Gimple has some really creative ways to redeem the character.

By the way, I suppose my issue overall isn't with complaints of the show, but rather the delivery of the complaints. All too often the complaints are short, to the point, and not thought out. Your complaint and subsequent talk-through are much easier to digest than, "they should have just killed the Governer."
Defence21
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,796
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:01 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Hockeynut! on Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:59 pm

This isn't so much TWD related but more "zombie apocalypse" related, but here's one thought I have about this scenario.

America is a big country. There are lots of very, very small town which would be home to a few hundred people at the most. Why do these people insist on sticking around cities/suburbs? Why not strike off for one of these hole in a wall towns, shoot the 4 or 5 hundred zombies and then live a relatively peaceful, if rather boring, life? If I were in their shoes, I'd go to one of these towns, kill the zombies, then find myself a nice remote cabin and fill it up with guns (for protection and hunting), supplies and books to occupy my time. I certainly wouldn't be anywhere in the vicinity of a city with millions of potential zombies roaming around.
Hockeynut!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,945
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:55 am

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby largegarlic on Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:23 pm

Hockeynut! wrote:This isn't so much TWD related but more "zombie apocalypse" related, but here's one thought I have about this scenario.

America is a big country. There are lots of very, very small town which would be home to a few hundred people at the most. Why do these people insist on sticking around cities/suburbs? Why not strike off for one of these hole in a wall towns, shoot the 4 or 5 hundred zombies and then live a relatively peaceful, if rather boring, life? If I were in their shoes, I'd go to one of these towns, kill the zombies, then find myself a nice remote cabin and fill it up with guns (for protection and hunting), supplies and books to occupy my time. I certainly wouldn't be anywhere in the vicinity of a city with millions of potential zombies roaming around.


I was thinking about this and wondering if this part of the problem with the plot and character motivations. Long-term, it seems like the zombie problem is solvable, if people are fairly smart. But that would be boring, if it just got to the point where they established a pretty safe wall-offed community in the middle of nowhere, so people have to keep making stupid decisions to introduce drama.
largegarlic
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,659
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:56 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby JiriSlegr on Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:10 pm

Defence21 wrote:
JiriSlegr wrote:I've read the comics, but I think the show suffers from an overall lack of strong writing. Some of it is good, some of it is great, but the majority of it is stock shlock there to keep the viewers coming back. Which is sad, because the flashes of greatness are awesome....but only come along once or twice a season.

I enjoy watching the show for what it is: mindless entertainment. It could be more, but I'd say that the Walking Dead is a show cursed with extremely good ratings. Which is insane, right?! Ratings are good and mean money! Except that it's money, and that opens the door for producers poking their fingers in places where they don't belong.

Producer: Hey guy that directed the number one movie on the IMDB top 250 list, I know you created a show that's making us lots of money and has insane viewership, but how about...you make us more money. As in, less zombies (who wants to pay extras?). As in, interior shots and green screens. And outdoor shots on vacant lots that we own (forcing characters into one stagnant place for extended periods of time). Who cares if it makes no sense for the story to stay in one place so long? Stretch it out! And you know what else? We want more screen time with the characters that people want to see (you know, the ones that fans scream about at conventions). You don't agree with that, Darabont? You're fired! And we'll bring in someone that will do what we say.

And season 2 happens...

You have a bunch of writers writing stories that someone else thinks are awesome and will make money and suddenly the characters are unlikable (mom's that keep forgetting they have a son while constantly searching for another woman's lost daughter). They all stay in one place, never talking about what should happen next...just sitting in the southern sun...while the insects drone. And doing stupid relationship things because of sex.

All while committing the worst sin in good writing: becoming repetitive. They talk about the same things again and again. They are selfish and create problems that don't exist. And as a result, viewers lose interest.

Wait--what happened? People aren't loving this? They loved the zombies? But that costs money...and well...what do we do?

You kill the characters that you turned to **** to force a redemption story.

Lori's the worst mother ever and changes her mind every other line? Done-zo.

Dale wants to leave the show--oopsie.

We turned Andrea, the most amazing character from the comics, into a complete idiot? Let's have her say she tried and blow her brains out.

Introduce the governor and create a bad guy. Things get exciting again! The guy's a good actor, and the governor is truly evil.

But not really that evil. I mean, he acts evil. And we say he's evil. And make him look evil. Like stare into the distance evil. And he kills characters that the audience doesn't know, so that makes him evil. You know.

But we can't kill him. I mean, ratings. Keep him alive and we can force even more conflict!

At the end of the day TV is about money. These are people trying to make lots and lots of money and the WD crew are doing it extremely well. And I watch it, and I enjoy it, so I can't complain too much. I just wish it was a show that stuck with the vision that we all saw in that first season. Instead, it's more of a week to week show that might be good and might be really really terrible.

See, this is the problem, though, really. The show gets huge ratings because so many people tune in and watch. They're not a victim of their ratings. Their ratings indicate the show's success. It's usually the case that the negative remarks always will be the most vocal -- but you come on here and read nothing but negatives. Stop watching the show if it's that bad. If the writing is terrible, why watch? If the characters are so poorly-developed, why watch? If the acting is so ridiculous, why watch? It's not like we don't have other options in 2013.

The problem is that some people expect absolute perfection, and even then, it likely wouldn't be good enough. It's not "mindless," as you put it. Sure, it has flaws, some of which easily can be pointed out -- but who cares? One of my favorite parts of watching the Walking Dead is the mindful discussion I have with my wife, friends, and co-workers after each episode dissecting why things happened, what they are leading to, etc. Like literature, there's a lot of this show that is open for individual interpretation. That's not common with most TV shows, and that's a big part of what sets the Walking Dead apart from other shows -- and precisely what makes it quite the opposite of "mindless."

Stop looking for perfection. Start looking for entertainment. If it doesn't satisfy, stop watching.


Hey Defence21--to each their own! If you find the show entertaining in a different way, great! I like that you're watching it and talking about it because it means that producers and television writers will be willing to take a chance on more shows like the WD (especially with GoT doing so well at the same time).

As I said, I enjoy it for its mindless entertainment. That's just me, and it doesn't make me right. So keep watching, and keep talking!
JiriSlegr
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby JiriSlegr on Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:26 pm

I also like to talk about the show, television in general, movies, games, anything story related, because that's what I want to do. I want to write for television, movies, plays, video games, et. al. And the best way to learn is to watch/read how others do it right and wrong.

The WD gets a lot right in the comics. In the show, it gets a lot of the fun right. When I say it suffers from a writing standpoint, I'd offer that the characters' dialogue doesn't match with their motivations. The show runner and writers' room has the overall plot put together before filming--thus the discussion we can have about plot and where we think it is going. But the dialogue suffers when writers aren't allowed to do their job and are being pushed to follow an ever-changing producer's command. It creates confusion and doesn't allow the work to be as strong as it could be. Doesn't make the show bad, but it does make me (and others) think it could be better.
JiriSlegr
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby PensFanInDC on Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:31 pm

Hockeynut! wrote:This isn't so much TWD related but more "zombie apocalypse" related, but here's one thought I have about this scenario.

America is a big country. There are lots of very, very small town which would be home to a few hundred people at the most. Why do these people insist on sticking around cities/suburbs? Why not strike off for one of these hole in a wall towns, shoot the 4 or 5 hundred zombies and then live a relatively peaceful, if rather boring, life? If I were in their shoes, I'd go to one of these towns, kill the zombies, then find myself a nice remote cabin and fill it up with guns (for protection and hunting), supplies and books to occupy my time. I certainly wouldn't be anywhere in the vicinity of a city with millions of potential zombies roaming around.


There are several holes in this scenario.

1) Hordes. We've seen them in TWD and in other zombie media. They move. Who is to say one doesn't roll through Bumflock one day?
2) Small towns have limited supplies. You will run out and will have to venture a great distance to find what you need as opposed to sticking somewhat close to larger areas where maybe a walmart or a veterinary school hasn't been totally ransacked.
3) Where are you getting all this ammo and weaponry? You're in a small town and while you might be able to gain a decent stock it's less likely than if you were closer to a larger area. On top of that you used a bunch of ammo and other resources killing off the 4 or 5 hundred living dead in the area.
PensFanInDC
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,198
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby JiriSlegr on Wed Nov 20, 2013 4:58 pm

PensFanInDC wrote:
Hockeynut! wrote:This isn't so much TWD related but more "zombie apocalypse" related, but here's one thought I have about this scenario.

America is a big country. There are lots of very, very small town which would be home to a few hundred people at the most. Why do these people insist on sticking around cities/suburbs? Why not strike off for one of these hole in a wall towns, shoot the 4 or 5 hundred zombies and then live a relatively peaceful, if rather boring, life? If I were in their shoes, I'd go to one of these towns, kill the zombies, then find myself a nice remote cabin and fill it up with guns (for protection and hunting), supplies and books to occupy my time. I certainly wouldn't be anywhere in the vicinity of a city with millions of potential zombies roaming around.


There are several holes in this scenario.

1) Hordes. We've seen them in TWD and in other zombie media. They move. Who is to say one doesn't roll through Bumflock one day?
2) Small towns have limited supplies. You will run out and will have to venture a great distance to find what you need as opposed to sticking somewhat close to larger areas where maybe a walmart or a veterinary school hasn't been totally ransacked.
3) Where are you getting all this ammo and weaponry? You're in a small town and while you might be able to gain a decent stock it's less likely than if you were closer to a larger area. On top of that you used a bunch of ammo and other resources killing off the 4 or 5 hundred living dead in the area.


Agreed. You also forget that you need sleep. You need food, water, resources. You get tired and lose focus--you make mistakes. Zombies never get tired, never lose their strength. Their entire being is focused on a single task, a single goal, and it will never falter in its attempts to attain that goal.

And let's say you're lucky enough to beat off the hordes and get a stranglehold on a small town. Sure, you used the majority of your ammunition (which in turn drew countless more undead--noise is your enemy). You probably lost a few men and women, friends more than likely, in the assault. You bury your dead, burn the bodies, say it wasn't all for nothing. And it wasn't, because now you have a home. But it's a defenseless home. It needs walls, traps, weapons--you need food and protection for the resources that are shrinking more and more everyday. Hell, they're almost gone because you put all that effort into clearing out that town and that takes lots and lots of effort. And now that you have the town, you have to do everything you can to defend it. Maybe you think it'll be easy to hold off the zeds, but what about the real enemy? What about the people who don't have what you have? The people with guns and a loud stomachs that see your meager comforts and decide that they'd like that. They deserve that. And they're going to do whatever they can to take it.

Won't even get into sickness (like what the WD is doing there), but I don't think it would be as easy as all that.
JiriSlegr
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby PensFanInDC on Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:01 pm

A zombie apocalypse cannot be survived. Maybe a handful of people in the world would make it to die of 'natural causes' but that's it.
PensFanInDC
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,198
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Hockeynut! on Wed Nov 20, 2013 5:48 pm

PensFanInDC wrote:
There are several holes in this scenario.

1) Hordes. We've seen them in TWD and in other zombie media. They move. Who is to say one doesn't roll through Bumflock one day?
2) Small towns have limited supplies. You will run out and will have to venture a great distance to find what you need as opposed to sticking somewhat close to larger areas where maybe a walmart or a veterinary school hasn't been totally ransacked.
3) Where are you getting all this ammo and weaponry? You're in a small town and while you might be able to gain a decent stock it's less likely than if you were closer to a larger area. On top of that you used a bunch of ammo and other resources killing off the 4 or 5 hundred living dead in the area.


1. Sure they move, but the odds of them finding a remote cabin in the mountains of WV or the middle of Montana would be pretty slim. As for the noise and drawing new hordes, again, I'm talking a really remote area. There are lots of place in the country where you're easily 30+ minutes from the next small town and an hour from a town big enough to support a Walmart. Once you kill off the original zombies, you could be setting off bombs and the next town/horde would be too far away to hear.

2. I do agree with this one. Supplies would be limited, but humans lived for centuries without Walmart. If you pick a good spot I think hunting would be plentiful so there's your meat. If you're in the mountains, find a stream and there's your water. Trees are pretty much unlimited so you can boil it if needed. You don't need electricity.

3. Small, rural towns have lots of ammo and guns. I live in one, I know. :lol:

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a hard life. It would be very challenging, almost like a settler in the wild west, but I think we'd be a lot more likely to survive in Bumflock than Atlanta.
Hockeynut!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,945
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:55 am

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Hockeynut! on Wed Nov 20, 2013 6:04 pm

And I should add that on more than one occasion I've thought that living a "unabomber" kind of life (without the terrorism) sounds pretty appealing. :lol:
Hockeynut!
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 3,945
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:55 am

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby largegarlic on Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:29 pm

I forget where I saw that now, but some website did the math and calculated that given how much time has passed on TWD, zombies could be pretty much eliminated at that point. I don't remember the exact math, but they assumed 90% of the population became zombies in the initial outbreak and a certain further percentage of survivors were killed/turned in the immediate aftermath. Even with that, if the remaining survivors averaged a reasonable number of zombie kills per day (again, I forget the exact number), the zombies would be wiped out in a couple years.
largegarlic
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,659
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:56 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby JeffDFD on Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:59 pm

What I wonder is what about decomposition? The sun and the elements are still acting on carbon based (former) life forms. We have seen badly deteriorated zombies...if most of the zombies were "created" with the initial outbreak - shouldn't they be near immobile and decomposed by now?
JeffDFD
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,565
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 2:55 pm
Location: Inside the tumor in Crosby's neck.

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby JiriSlegr on Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:00 am

JeffDFD wrote:What I wonder is what about decomposition? The sun and the elements are still acting on carbon based (former) life forms. We have seen badly deteriorated zombies...if most of the zombies were "created" with the initial outbreak - shouldn't they be near immobile and decomposed by now?


It's a good question, and something some recent authors have attempted to explore (while possibly ignoring science).

I recommend Max Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide if you haven't read it. In it, the zombie infection is in every cell and gives them a sort of...coating that slows down deterioration. Again, it's not scientific, but it's an attempt to make sense of a horde of undead cooking in the sun day after day without effect.

(Also read Brooks' World War Z. Great novel, great social commentary, and nothing like the film.)

We have seen a few biters in the show too weak to move or chew. I would guess that at some point that's how all of them will end up.
JiriSlegr
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby Admin on Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:14 am

Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 10,805
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:04 am

Re: The Walking Dead

Postby PensFanInDC on Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:26 am

Hockeynut! wrote:
PensFanInDC wrote:
There are several holes in this scenario.

1) Hordes. We've seen them in TWD and in other zombie media. They move. Who is to say one doesn't roll through Bumflock one day?
2) Small towns have limited supplies. You will run out and will have to venture a great distance to find what you need as opposed to sticking somewhat close to larger areas where maybe a walmart or a veterinary school hasn't been totally ransacked.
3) Where are you getting all this ammo and weaponry? You're in a small town and while you might be able to gain a decent stock it's less likely than if you were closer to a larger area. On top of that you used a bunch of ammo and other resources killing off the 4 or 5 hundred living dead in the area.


1. Sure they move, but the odds of them finding a remote cabin in the mountains of WV or the middle of Montana would be pretty slim. As for the noise and drawing new hordes, again, I'm talking a really remote area. There are lots of place in the country where you're easily 30+ minutes from the next small town and an hour from a town big enough to support a Walmart. Once you kill off the original zombies, you could be setting off bombs and the next town/horde would be too far away to hear.

2. I do agree with this one. Supplies would be limited, but humans lived for centuries without Walmart. If you pick a good spot I think hunting would be plentiful so there's your meat. If you're in the mountains, find a stream and there's your water. Trees are pretty much unlimited so you can boil it if needed. You don't need electricity.

3. Small, rural towns have lots of ammo and guns. I live in one, I know. :lol:

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a hard life. It would be very challenging, almost like a settler in the wild west, but I think we'd be a lot more likely to survive in Bumflock than Atlanta.


Well allow me to retort :D

1) Considering that zombies don't follow roads or trails and just wonder aimlessly I think the odds are even higher that a horde finds a remote cabin.

2) "Supplies would be limited, but humans lived for centuries without Walmart." That's true. But we haven't had to in a long time and we've become adjusted to it now. Living off the land is possible but to throw someone who has never had to do it into a world where you are now forced to while at the same time becoming the prey of a dangerous predator is a lot to overcome.

3) Small, rural towns have lots of guns and ammo. And said guns and ammo would have probably been taken by the original owners and/or used against you when you come into the town.
PensFanInDC
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,198
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: skullman80, the wicked child and 6 guests

e-mail