The Walking Dead -- TV Series Thread

[Raiders Army]

This is one of the more entertaining shows on TV...however, the writers are either really bad or they're being tied too tightly to the comic. Let's take two different examples of shows with low budgets and a premise based on special effects:

Heroes Season 1 didn't have as much money as they did during Season 2. They had to write good stories. When their budget increased, they went off the deep end relying on special effects as opposed to an engrossing story.

The Walking Dead Season 2 doesn't have a big budget, so why wouldn't the writers develop an actual story? We don't even know the names of people on Herschel's farm other than Herschel and Maggie. There's almost no development to T-Dog. At this point in the series we should be invested into the characters so that when they eventually die, we'll feel something. At this point, I'd only be sad if Dale, Glenn, or Maggie died. I could deal with everyone else and would be relieved when some of them die (yeah, I'm looking at you Lori!).

I have to think the writers are being held too closely to the source material as well as trying to do too much. I'm not emotionally invested in a lot of the characters and for as much down time and "character moments" that's a shame.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Subby

No way they kill Shane off any time soon. The tension he creates now is one of the best parts of the show.

The only thing Shane really brings for me at this point is gleefully anticipating his death.

Perhaps there's a clue about the success of the show in our difference of opinion (or reaction). We're both relatively happy with the show, presumably, yet have nearly opposite reactions to a central character.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I have to think the writers are being held too closely to the source material as well as trying to do too much.

I haven't read the source material but I think I'm reasonably familiar with it from spoilers/summaries/etc.

I don't think "held too closely" is an option here, I mean the diversion from the source is pretty dramatic.

-- We've got a main character that doesn't exist in the comic
-- We've got multiple main characters that are already long since dead in the comic
-- We've got/had characters that either don't exist in the original or may be composites of characters from the source material
-- Skill sets / personality traits differ from the source material by varying degrees, but at least a couple of those have been fairly significant IMO (Andrea's relationship with guns being a great example)

edit to add: Make that at least one main character that's already long since dead

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The only thing Shane really brings for me at this point is gleefully anticipating his death.

Agreed. I can't wait for his uppence to come.

[stevew]

I think Talking Dead equivalents should exist for many of the major shows. It's essentially a commercial, which costs them probably <50k per half hour. Don't know about what kind of ratings it did, however.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I haven't read the source material but I think I'm reasonably familiar with it from spoilers/summaries/etc.

I don't think "held too closely" is an option here, I mean the diversion from the source is pretty dramatic.

-- We've got a main character that doesn't exist in the comic
-- We've got multiple main characters that are already long since dead in the comic
-- We've got/had characters that either don't exist in the original or may be composites of characters from the source material
-- Skill sets / personality traits differ from the source material by varying degrees, but at least a couple of those have been fairly significant IMO (Andrea's relationship with guns being a great example)

edit to add: Make that at least one main character that's already long since dead

Hrm. Maybe what I meant to say was that Kirkman is too much in control and trying to keep it close to his source material with tinkering to make it better. He has said that he killed Shane off too quickly in the comic book.

Andrea is good with guns. I think you saw that in the housing development. I'm not sure where that is is a skill set that differs?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Hrm. Maybe what I meant to say was that Kirkman is too much in control and trying to keep it close to his source material with tinkering to make it better. He has said that he killed Shane off too quickly in the comic book.

Andrea is good with guns. I think you saw that in the housing development. I'm not sure where that is is a skill set that differs?

As I understand it, she came that way in the comics, arguably the best shot in the group. On TV, we went through the whole dramatic learning-to-shoot thing, prior to which they didn't even trust her with a gun.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As I understand it, she came that way in the comics, arguably the best shot in the group. On TV, we went through the whole dramatic learning-to-shoot thing, prior to which they didn't even trust her with a gun.

In the comic there is no real issue with giving Andrea a gun, but she doesn't come in as a dead shot. She trains with the rest and just happens to be sort of a natural or savant when it comes to shooting. It's a skill she didn't know she had. So, the progress was similar but not quite as nuanced.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

This is one of the more entertaining shows on TV...however, the writers are either really bad or they're being tied too tightly to the comic. Let's take two different examples of shows with low budgets and a premise based on special effects:

Heroes Season 1 didn't have as much money as they did during Season 2. They had to write good stories. When their budget increased, they went off the deep end relying on special effects as opposed to an engrossing story.

The Walking Dead Season 2 doesn't have a big budget, so why wouldn't the writers develop an actual story? We don't even know the names of people on Herschel's farm other than Herschel and Maggie. There's almost no development to T-Dog. At this point in the series we should be invested into the characters so that when they eventually die, we'll feel something. At this point, I'd only be sad if Dale, Glenn, or Maggie died. I could deal with everyone else and would be relieved when some of them die (yeah, I'm looking at you Lori!).

I have to think the writers are being held too closely to the source material as well as trying to do too much. I'm not emotionally invested in a lot of the characters and for as much down time and "character moments" that's a shame.

I really don't think the problem with the show is trying to stick too closely to the source material. As Jon has mentioned, I think they've show a strong willingess to divert from the source material in a lot of ways. They really have only loosely stuck to it.

I think there are quite a few people who feel the same you do about the characters. People just haven't connected with them. There are some fan favorites, in paritcular Glenn and Daryl and to a lesser extent Maggie.

People seem to either dislike or be bored by Rick. Most folks hate Lori because she's kind of unpleasant and shrill in many respects. A lot of people hate Andrea too. People go back and forth on Shane. And Dale is a bit of a mixed bag.

I don't think it's a problem with character development really. I think there has been plenty character development. In some cases, perhaps too much character development.

At this point we have different tiers of characters (could be some argument as to where people lie exactly):

A-Listers:
Rick, Lori, Shane and by extension Carl

B-Listers:
Glenn, Andrea, Dale, Hershel, Maggie and Darryl

C-Listers:
T-Dawg, Carol, Sophia, and everyone else on the farm - the young kid, the young girl and Mrs. Otis.

We've had plenty of character development with the A-Listers and a decent amount for the B-List group. The C-Listers really haven't had much screen time and spend a lot of time in the background and what not. The show could do a better job of giving the C-Listers more to do and more character development but cutting into some of the time spent developing the A-Listers.


I would like to see more character development out of T-Dawg and Carol, but to say that this show lacks character development is sorely mistaken. I have an excellent sense of Rick, Lori, and Shane. I have a very good sense of most, if not all, of the B-Listers as well. I think there may be a bit too much harping on the lack of development of some characters who are quite clearly minor characters, at least at this point.

I think the problem has been that a lot of the character development of the A-Listers has been a bit repetitive and hasn't made them all that sympathetic. I actually have started coming around more on Lori. I've always liked Rick. He's a very well formulated character, but he's not charasmatic and that's sort of part of who he is. In fact, it's sort of a large part. Lori has complained about his lack of emotion and distance, even before this started, and all the highschool stories about Shane and Rick clearly pain Rick as sort of the quiet, reserved guy who just sort of watched Shane's reckless bravado from a safe distance.

I have read all the comics and I feel like the characters on the show are much more "alive" and distinct. I never felt the comic did a great job developing any characters other than Rick and Carl, to some extent, and a character who has not yet appeared on the show. The others are a bit paper thin.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I've always liked Rick. He's a very well formulated character, but he's not charasmatic and that's sort of part of who he is.

OMG, that's Dean Malenko !

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I really don't think the problem with the show is trying to stick too closely to the source material. As Jon has mentioned, I think they've show a strong willingess to divert from the source material in a lot of ways. They really have only loosely stuck to it.

I think there are quite a few people who feel the same you do about the characters. People just haven't connected with them. There are some fan favorites, in paritcular Glenn and Daryl and to a lesser extent Maggie.

People seem to either dislike or be bored by Rick. Most folks hate Lori because she's kind of unpleasant and shrill in many respects. A lot of people hate Andrea too. People go back and forth on Shane. And Dale is a bit of a mixed bag.

I don't think it's a problem with character development really. I think there has been plenty character development. In some cases, perhaps too much character development.

At this point we have different tiers of characters (could be some argument as to where people lie exactly):

A-Listers:
Rick, Lori, Shane and by extension Carl

B-Listers:
Glenn, Andrea, Dale, Hershel, Maggie and Darryl

C-Listers:
T-Dawg, Carol, Sophia, and everyone else on the farm - the young kid, the young girl and Mrs. Otis.

We've had plenty of character development with the A-Listers and a decent amount for the B-List group. The C-Listers really haven't had much screen time and spend a lot of time in the background and what not. The show could do a better job of giving the C-Listers more to do and more character development but cutting into some of the time spent developing the A-Listers.


I would like to see more character development out of T-Dawg and Carol, but to say that this show lacks character development is sorely mistaken. I have an excellent sense of Rick, Lori, and Shane. I have a very good sense of most, if not all, of the B-Listers as well. I think there may be a bit too much harping on the lack of development of some characters who are quite clearly minor characters, at least at this point.

I think the problem has been that a lot of the character development of the A-Listers has been a bit repetitive and hasn't made them all that sympathetic. I actually have started coming around more on Lori. I've always liked Rick. He's a very well formulated character, but he's not charasmatic and that's sort of part of who he is. In fact, it's sort of a large part. Lori has complained about his lack of emotion and distance, even before this started, and all the highschool stories about Shane and Rick clearly pain Rick as sort of the quiet, reserved guy who just sort of watched Shane's reckless bravado from a safe distance.

I have read all the comics and I feel like the characters on the show are much more "alive" and distinct. I never felt the comic did a great job developing any characters other than Rick and Carl, to some extent, and a character who has not yet appeared on the show. The others are a bit paper thin.

I'd agree that character development is there; it's just bad character development IMHO because we can't connect with many of them (it may be semantics, but I'd say connecting as opposed to sympathizing with them). I agree the comic didn't do much in character development and in fact I think Lori's development is far and beyond what it is the in comic.

In a way, I feel like this show is a lot like Lost. There are a bunch of people that I see sometimes and go "Who is that?"

*side note: Lori's argument of bringing a child into that world is null and void. She argued that she still remembers good times and can cling to them; a new child wouldn't know anything of the world before (other than reading books, and I'd guess that it would be like reading science fiction). If I were Rick, I would've told her that the world is what we make of it and their (Shane's) baby wouldn't miss anything because she wouldn't have experienced anything other than we Lori and Rick gave her.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

OMG, that's Dean Malenko !

Astute!

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't watch Talking Dead.

Why? I'm not a HUGE fan of the show, but I find it pretty interesting. Seems like a home run for you.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Why? I'm not a HUGE fan of the show, but I find it pretty interesting. Seems like a home run for you.

Not out of any kind of principle or anything. I just never really think about it or remember it's on.

[Draft Dodger]

a little late to the party because we just recently caught up.

I don't mind the season so far...although I do think the slower pace would have benefited from some more deft character development. I totally agree that we don't connect with most of the characters (still not sure I could remember all the names of everyone). Heck, I was trying to remember the people from the group who had died in season one and couldn't do it. There was some person who they left by the side of the road, there was the one chick's sister, and I think someone blew up in the CDC? And I can't picture any of them, not even sure the gender of the side of the road person. Everyone either has no depth (dorky Glenn, the chick who wants to shoot things, the grandpa guy, Sophie's mopy mom) or they have depth but it's handled so comically that they appear schizophrenic (hello, Shane). You think of, for example, all the amazingly complex and interesting characters from Lost and almost any of them would be a huge upgrade, even the lamest ones like Libby or Ana Lucia.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

a little late to the party because we just recently caught up.

I don't mind the season so far...although I do think the slower pace would have benefited from some more deft character development. I totally agree that we don't connect with most of the characters (still not sure I could remember all the names of everyone). Heck, I was trying to remember the people from the group who had died in season one and couldn't do it. There was some person who they left by the side of the road, there was the one chick's sister, and I think someone blew up in the CDC? And I can't picture any of them, not even sure the gender of the side of the road person. Everyone either has no depth (dorky Glenn, the chick who wants to shoot things, the grandpa guy, Sophie's mopy mom) or they have depth but it's handled so comically that they appear schizophrenic (hello, Shane). You think of, for example, all the amazingly complex and interesting characters from Lost and almost any of them would be a huge upgrade, even the lamest ones like Libby or Ana Lucia.

Good post. They are generally doing a poor job with the show IMHO, and I always feel one episode away from just stopping my viewing. The mid-season break could easily lead to me forgetting about the show and not returning.

Your description of the shallow nature of most characters, and my inability to only vaguely recall those who have been killed off is right on.

[stevew]

Really entertaining interview with Michael Rooker(Merle) on the Nerdist Podcast(Chris Hardwick) The guy is definitely a character. Not a ton of walking dead talk, but worth the (free) listen.

[Draft Dodger]

so, I've been reading through the comics...er, graphic novels. very interesting. in some ways, I think it makes me appreciate the TV show more, as a lot of the changes / additions have been good ones. But I will say that the comics focus much more on the survival side of things, something I have long groused that the TV show is missing.

I did cheer when they killed off a certain annoying character early in the comics. if only...

[stevew]

Sunday sunday sunday

[JonInMiddleGA]

9p, 8c

[PackerFanatic]

Super pumped.

[samifan24]

There won't be anymore breaks until the end of the season now, right?

[MacroGuru]

Just started watching this series over the weekend on Netflix, I have yet to read this thread...just wanted to say...this series is fucking awesome already.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by samifan24

There won't be anymore breaks until the end of the season now, right?

Yeah, but there's only 6 episodes in this half of season 2.

Season 3 will be 16 episodes, once again split into halves

[stevew]

Originally Posted by samifan24

There won't be anymore breaks until the end of the season now, right?

The next 6 weed complete the season. I'd assume the next season starts around Halloween. But I don't think that is set in stone. Could easily be a year from now.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Just started watching this series over the weekend on Netflix, I have yet to read this thread...just wanted to say...this series is fucking awesome already.

Buy the season debut, the mid season finale and "Save the Last One" from Amazon or iTunes to get caught up. Not sure the other 4 episodes are so important. I suppose the one Daryl one was ok too.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

so, I've been reading through the comics...er, graphic novels. very interesting. in some ways, I think it makes me appreciate the TV show more, as a lot of the changes / additions have been good ones. But I will say that the comics focus much more on the survival side of things, something I have long groused that the TV show is missing.

I did cheer when they killed off a certain annoying character early in the comics. if only...

almost up to date with the comics - maybe 4 or 5 left to go. Turns out, Rick being an idiot on the show was just following the comics

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty sure we're supposed to be shocked by that last scene.
I'm really not.

[gi]

Wasn't shocked but it did move Grimes along in character development.

Too many cues to see how that ended

[bulletsponge]

yep, knew how that was going to turn out the second i saw those 2 right before the commercial. tense scene though

[stevew]

Good to see Rick grow a set. Hopefully that was fatal for Lori there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, I didn't mean my comment to sound like a complaint or anything. I just think maybe it wasn't as shocking to at least parts of the audience as they might have been shooting for when it was written.

As for the tension, heck I was interested in watching Rick & Herschel communicate silently during the scene.

[stevew]

I can get behind a walker free episode like this one was, basically. The tension between various factions of people is ripe for exploration. It was touched upon in the Vatos episode, and it's good to see something similar arise.

[stevew]

dola

the one guy looked just enough like Dane Cook for me to be confused as it whether or not it was actually Dane Cook.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can get behind a walker free episode like this one was, basically. The tension between various factions of people is ripe for exploration. It was touched upon in the Vatos episode, and it's good to see something similar arise.

and that scene was the best part of the show by a lot. very nicely done.

[Butter]

Did I miss the "scenes from the next episode bit"? All I could think was, "Great, now we get like 5 weeks of looking for Lori."

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Did I miss the "scenes from the next episode bit"? All I could think was, "Great, now we get like 5 weeks of looking for Lori."

It was a

Spoiler

scene of Hershel, Glenn and Rick pinned down and hiding from friends of the 2 guys that they had killed

Dave Navarro was pretty cool on last night's talking dead. He made a similar "please don't make us spend all season with another person in a bed" quip that was pretty hilarious.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Did I miss the "scenes from the next episode bit"?

They stuck it in after the first segment of the regrettable Comic Book Pawn Shop with Kevin Smith show

[Butter]

Well I'm not watching that shit to get to the scenes from the next episode.

[stevew]

It's on AMCTV.com \

http://www.amctv.com/the-walking-dea...-triggerfinger

[Draft Dodger]

oh, and I liked the little comic book reference to a possible community in DC

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by stevew

The tension between various factions of people is ripe for exploration.

I agree. The "moral", if you will, of many a zombie movie is that other people are always a bigger threat than the zombies. People are the real monsters, zombies are just sort of a catalyst or accelerant. That kind of tension can really wratchet things up big time and I thought that last scene played out beautifully.

It's too bad they killed those guys off so quickly, because I really like the actor who played the skinny guy. He was Rene on "True Blood".

Between being the one who shot Sophia and now this Rick really is beginning to make a bit of a turn. He's becomming more like the character in the comic in a way that he'll do pretty much anything to protect his own. A pretty sharp contrast to the guy who spent days "hoping" to find a little girl who was lost and everyone knew she was dead.

Oh, stupid Lori. I am really not sure what she'd thought she'd accomplish. Run out there and tell everyone to "hurry up, guys! I'm serious!"

[Kodos]

Could Lori's character be any more stupid? Why was she going after Herschel when Rick was already doing that?

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Could Lori's character be any more stupid? Why was she going after Herschel when Rick was already doing that?

this is how you tell a story on TV.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Thinking more about that scene in the bar, it's an interesting take on the psychology of how groups form, too. What is it that ties the group all together, and makes other people outsiders? Just circumstance, really. The "us" vs. "them" takes hold very quickly. We've seen what people have had to do to survive, relatively good and normal people. How quickly than can become desperate and how distructive outside forces can be.

Just a few hours ago Herhsal and his people were the "them" and Rick and his people were the "us". The moment a strange, third party enters into the scenario and instantly Rick and Hershel unify against the outsiders.

It was exactly the psychology that Dr. Manhattan was counting on to diffuse the potential World War III in "Watchmen".

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

oh, and I liked the little comic book reference to a possible community in DC

I liked that too.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Despite the overall general negative feelings towards the first half of Season 2, the ratings for this show just continue to rise:

'Walking Dead' return delivers monster ratings | Inside TV | EW.com

AMC’s midseason return of The Walking Dead broke the show’s previous records.

On Sunday night, the zombie drama had 8.1 million viewers and 5.4 million viewers among adults 18-49. That’s TV’s biggest drama series telecast in the adult demo in basic cable history. That’s up 12 percent in the demo compared to the show’s previous record, October’s season 2 premiere. Combined with its encore, Walking Dead had 10.1 million viewers for the night.

[Butter]

Wow, 10 million viewers. There are a bunch of network shows that would kill for those numbers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Wow, 10 million viewers. There are a bunch of network shows that would kill for those numbers.

It solidly beat everything on the networks Sunday except for the Grammys and got nipped by Once Upon A Time. I was hoping for 2nd place outright but it's still a monster.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

It was exactly the psychology that Dr. Manhattan was counting on to diffuse the potential World War III in "Watchmen".

That was Ozymandias.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That was Ozymandias.

Word.

[Jas_lov]

Hopefully this will be the end of the Lori character. She's such a waste and after she just told Rick not to go into town she gets in a car and does the same thing. What was she going to do anyway, save all 3 men from a horde of walkers?

This episode was ok, better than any in the first half of season 2. It was largely helped by the end scene in the bar. At least there was some action and new people for the main characters to interact with.