Quote:
Originally Posted by cthomer5000
For the passive-aggressive inquiries as to why I still watch:
I am pot-committed on Walking Dead at this point, just as I was with Lost. It has massively squandered an interesting premise and an initially interesting cast. At the same time I've put in enough time that I'm going to see it through to the end. I wouldn't get 500 pages into a 700 page book and give up, even if I wasn't enjoying it.
It has also consistently ignored it's only fully-developed, interesting characters (Carol and Daryl) in favor of screen time with any other number of vacuums of personality (Beth).
It' also barely even looked into characters like Glenn, who seemed immediately interesting when introduced to the show.
As I've said repeatedly, they re-write these characters to be as dumb as necessary to suit a particular episode, constantly counting on viewers to be enough of amnesiacs to reconcile their behavior.
After ages on the road, these characters somehow still cannot search a house in a methodical manner or look through an empty car without forgetting how mechanisms to open them even work. But hey, some people accept that as not merely passable but "great" writing, so I guess they are succeeding.
|
I feel the characters are written pretty consistently. In Season 2, Lori kept flip flopping back and forth between almost being Lady MacBeth like in her desire for Rick to get rid of Shane and mortified at the very thought of anything happening to Shane. It was odd. Then there was that one episode after the prison where Carl was an ass and a that tub of chocolate pudding. That seemed very out of character based on where Carl had progressed during his time in the prison. Those instances stand out to me.
I'm not sure what show you're watching where Daryl is "consistently ignored". He gets as much screen time as any character on the show. It's a large assemble cast. Screen time will be limited and some characters will be more major than other. After Rick, maybe Carl, Daryl is solidly number three. I think what they've done with Carol - going from where she started to where she's at - has been on the most interesting character transformations you'll find on TV anywhere, anytime. She gets plenty. Glenn is Glenn. I think they do right by him. Would the show benefit from culling the cast down a bit? Maybe. But that's not really the show.
The other picayune (I do loves me that word) stuff you mentioned doesn't bother me. I think they do a fair enough job showing how far the group has come in terms of surviving in this world. Sure, they slip up at times because emotions get the best of them. Like you mentioned in an earlier post, at some point this stuff becomes rote. It'd be hard to be at your best at all times, methodical at all times. I assume that they do a good job of sweeping and clearing houses and searching cars off-screen. They only show us the dramatic shit, when people slip up and things go wrong.
I could see where it would be hard to stop watching "Lost", because the nature of that show. As for "The Walking Dead", I don't quite get it. As I've mentioned before one of the struggles this show - and the comic - has is that there is no real end point. No massive arc to complete. It's a story about a group of people surviving in the zombie apocalypse. That's pretty much it. Characters have individual arcs, but there's no mystery to solve, no bad guy to catch, to great villain to defeat, or no real end game other than surviving or dying. It tends to lend itself to wandering and stagnating at times.
That said, keep watching! I don't mind the dialogue. When I have the time, I'll gladly defend the show where I feel it's warranted and happily agree when I think the criticism is valid.