Personally I think it lies somewhere in the middle. There's some good acting, and some bad. Even by the same actor. Somebody will be brilliant one week and awkward to watch the next.
I agree with a lot of what you said in the previous post rrivers. And I think the writers need to find a good balance. It doesn't have to be either zombie heavy or no zombies at all, but they can't seem to find that middle ground, at least not this season. It seems like they flip-flop between the two extremes and very rarely balance it out. George Romero managed to find that balance in Night, Dawn and Day of The Dead. There were long stretches with no zombie action, but he always kept the threat feeling immediate.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Personally I think it lies somewhere in the middle. There's some good acting, and some bad. Even by the same actor. Somebody will be brilliant one week and awkward to watch the next.
I agree with a lot of what you said in the previous post rrivers. And I think the writers need to find a good balance. It doesn't have to be either zombie heavy or no zombies at all, but they can't seem to find that middle ground, at least not this season. It seems like they flip-flop between the two extremes and very rarely balance it out. George Romero managed to find that balance in Night, Dawn and Day of The Dead. There were long stretches with no zombie action, but he always kept the threat feeling immediate.
Glad you like it. I think those of us who are down on this season aren't asking for 60 minutes of zombies, but the show is called The Walking Dead so we would like more of it. I wouldn't even mind going away from the zombies if the humans were more interesting, the writing was better, or the acting was better. Since it's not, give me more zombies!
This is not a dig at you, but this defense of "the show is not about <blank>, it's about <blank>" happens quite a bit as a defense of a show when others think it has gone downhill. I remember the Lost creators used that when people complained at the end saying "the show is not about the mysteries and the questions (they continued to throw out there and never really answered), it's about the characters". Ok, well make the characters more interesting. But in reality most people were watching for the mysteries.
I don't disagree with you that the show is about human survival, but make the storylines and the writing better when you go away from the zombies. They also need to make things clearer, especially things that are essential to the show like how one becomes a zombie. I have had and heard (one on Howard Stern this morning) a few conversations this week about why Shane became a zombie. Something this essential to the show should not be so vague. And with all the plot holes others have pointed out in this thread, it's hard for me to take it seriously as a character-driven show. But again, that's fine, just give me a zombie show!
I'm glad you're enjoying it and hope it does get better next season because I'm sure I will still be watching!
I actually think the title isn't what you think it is. I think The Walking Dead refers to the characters, not the zombies.
I can't agree more about Lost. I was more annoyed with that show than anything, but it was a "must finish this" type of scenario. I hated when there were more questions than answers, and it stayed that way even after the series was over. I think what's in my corner on this is that I'm not a big fan of the zombie genre, so I'm ok with not a lot of zombie stuff. And I think not knowing how one becomes a zombie is a huge plot twist that's going to come up. I think they've done a great job hinting at it, and now showing how it happens. I think we're going to find out for sure at the finale.
I also don't get the complaints about the acting. What's wrong with the acting?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Glad you like it. I think those of us who are down on this season aren't asking for 60 minutes of zombies, but the show is called The Walking Dead so we would like more of it. I wouldn't even mind going away from the zombies if the humans were more interesting, the writing was better, or the acting was better. Since it's not, give me more zombies!
This is not a dig at you, but this defense of "the show is not about <blank>, it's about <blank>" happens quite a bit as a defense of a show when others think it has gone downhill. I remember the Lost creators used that when people complained at the end saying "the show is not about the mysteries and the questions (they continued to throw out there and never really answered), it's about the characters". Ok, well make the characters more interesting. But in reality most people were watching for the mysteries.
I don't disagree with you that the show is about human survival, but make the storylines and the writing better when you go away from the zombies. They also need to make things clearer, especially things that are essential to the show like how one becomes a zombie. I have had and heard (one on Howard Stern this morning) a few conversations this week about why Shane became a zombie. Something this essential to the show should not be so vague. And with all the plot holes others have pointed out in this thread, it's hard for me to take it seriously as a character-driven show. But again, that's fine, just give me a zombie show!
I'm glad you're enjoying it and hope it does get better next season because I'm sure I will still be watching!
I actually think the title isn't what you think it is. I think The Walking Dead refers to the characters, not the zombies.
I can't agree more about Lost. I was more annoyed with that show than anything, but it was a "must finish this" type of scenario. I hated when there were more questions than answers, and it stayed that way even after the series was over. I think what's in my corner on this is that I'm not a big fan of the zombie genre, so I'm ok with not a lot of zombie stuff. And I think not knowing how one becomes a zombie is a huge plot twist that's going to come up. I think they've done a great job hinting at it, and now showing how it happens. I think we're going to find out for sure at the finale.
I also don't get the complaints about the acting. What's wrong with the acting?
Fair enough. I don't think the title refers to the characters, but if you do that's fine. Based on my thoughts about the rest of the show, I don't think it was thought about that deeply. I haven't read the comic, but I don't imagine the title was meant to refer to the still alive characters. To me, it just seems like a show about zombies, nothing too deep. And as I keep saying, go ahead! Make the show about zombies! That's why I started watching in the first place! (Actually, that's not completely true and I am pretty much over the whole zombie genre. The main reason I started watching it was because Darabont was running it and the first season gave me a high quality show that I have come to expect from him ( ie Shawshank, The Mist, etc.)
Glad to hear we at least agree on "Lost". That show ruined me for any show where they even hint at a mystery. Nope, not getting involved after that train wreck.
You might be right about how you actually become a zombie being a big plot twist or something that will be explained later. I thought someone else made a good point about us as viewers are following along with the characters because they don't know and we don't know. To me, this and other plot problems people in this thread have pointed out don't come off to me like there is a grand plan where things will be explained later but that they are just plot holes that weren't worked out by the writers. I feel by this time in the show we should know definitively if everyone who dies becomes a zombie or if you need to be biten. I talked with a friend about this and he read the comic. He told me he "assumes any recently dead person becomes a zombie and Dale didn't because they shot him in the head". Makes sense, but they didn't shoot Dale in the head to stop him from becoming a zombie, I took it that they shot him to put him out of his misery. But I have come across enough people who are questioning how one becomes a zombie that it seems to be a problem for more than me.
The Shane-turning-into-a-zombie felt like they wanted to surprise us and have Carl (Satansfuton) shoot him for the drama of it. It felt cheap to me, like it wasn't earned because we (maybe I should just say I) didn't know Shane was going to turn. Neither did the sherif, who I can't even remember his name.
Basically what this all boils down to for me, is I don't want to be watching the show and have something come up that takes me out of the story where I am questioning whether it makes sense. I understand we have to suspend disbelief (it's a zombie show for crying out loud!), but I'm talking about making sense within the confines of the universe they have created. This is my problem with the acting. I don't need the Royal Shakespeare company just some competent actors who, again, don't take me out of watching the show with how poorly I deem their acting. I find Shane, the sheriff, and Lori (the sheriff's wife) to be especially bad.
If I remember correctly, in The Rise of the Governor (which in the Walking Dead timeline, probably occurs prior to Rick joining the group or at least concurrently to it), the pre-Governor character and his brother and pal meet up with a man and his two daughters in an apartment complex. While they are there, the old man dies of natural causes and shortly after, he turns into a zombie thereby establishing fairly early on in the post-apocalypse that you need not be bitten or scratched to turn.
Ottawa 2011
London 2013 "The Dundas Hookers on Crack" Show
To me, this and other plot problems people in this thread have pointed out don't come off to me like there is a grand plan where things will be explained later but that they are just plot holes that weren't worked out by the writers. I feel by this time in the show we should know definitively if everyone who dies becomes a zombie or if you need to be biten.
the "how they become a zombie" hasn't been explained because it was actually explained in season one (being exposed to a zombie via a bite or a scratch). they didn't lie. it's just now SEEMS the virus has mutated (as many strong/resistant viruses do) to now be transferred through the air. otherwise every single dead person that Rick (the sheriff) came across in Atlanta would have been a walker.
I really don't think there are plot holes. I think this has been carefully plotted out. From what I can see, is that this isn't Lost. At least so far. If it was, we would have had a bunch of flashback episodes going through the history of the characters before the apocalypse or something of the like.
I think the main difference of people who are stioll captivated by this show and those that are bored by it in season 2 is how you look at the show and what you want from it. As I said, I was never a big zombie guy (never saw any of the big zombie movies, even to this day), but when I saw the trailers for this series, I was captivated by the story of human survival. But there are many others who look at the writer/creater of the show and are expecting something much different. I can appreciate that. I'm just glad it's going my way.
that said, I'm not going to bitch after the finale, which looks like a zombie-fest.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Even if it was explained at the end of season 1, there was enough confusion just on this thread to show people watching it wouldn't understand why Shane became a zombie.
And my expectations for this show are ridculously low and they continue to surprise me every week when the episodes don't even meet those low expectations. But that is one of the things that keeps me watching: to see how bad it will get.
Even if it was explained at the end of season 1, there was enough confusion just on this thread to show people watching it wouldn't understand why Shane became a zombie.
I actually like that in this show. I don't like things being so obvious that they are spoon-fed to the audience. to me that's the "holy shit" factor of the show.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Even if it was explained at the end of season 1, there was enough confusion just on this thread to show people watching it wouldn't understand why Shane became a zombie.
I actually like that in this show. I don't like things being so obvious that they are spoon-fed to the audience. to me that's the "holy shit" factor of the show.
I'm not asking to be spoon-fed, I'm asking for coherence.
I don't disagree with you that the show is about human survival, but make the storylines and the writing better when you go away from the zombies.
This! I still enjoy this show overall, but I don't think its living up to its potential at all. I think the second half of the season has been stronger than the first half, but my biggest gripe is that for the most part the non-zombie story lines just aren't very strong. This season has felt stagnant..like not a lot has really happened. We have one episode where they are going to leave Randall and debating what to do with them, then the next episode they spend the entire episode deciding what to do with him without making a decision, then it isn't until the end of the next episode that Shane kills him. We had the entire first half of the season spent looking for Sophia and people sick in bed. They shouldn't need zombies to make the show interesting, but most of the time, the show doesn't seem interesting when zombies aren't on the screen because the writing is lacking. My brother in law who has never seen the show before laughed at last week's episode...especially when Lori was talking to Shane and said she didn't know who the baby belonged to. He said it was like a bad soap opera with random moments of zombie violence. I think at times, it really is.
I think that AMC cutting the budget for season 2, pretty much forcing them to stay on the farm the entire season, didn't help at all.
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
What does everyone think of this season? I think it has really gone downhill. I enjoyed the first season a lot, but this season they are spending a lot of time trying to strengthen the characters and really doing a poor job of it. I'm not expecting the show to be Mad Men or The Sopranos with regard to writing and characterization, but it seems like they are trying to make it that way and failing. The whole prisoner storyline just dragged and was stupid to begin with...why save the guy and then kill or let him go? Just leave him there in the first place! They need to get off that farm.
Why do I keep watching, you ask? Honestly, I'm not sure. I find myself checking the time left on my DVR'd copy a lot and hoping for the end. Part of me hopes it will get good again (though I doubt it, I think Darabont had a lot to do with it being good) and another part of me watches because it has entered the "so bad it's good" arena.
I think we're kind've in the same boat about this season. I almost stopped watching after that zombie in the well episode. I don't want or need zombie attack after zombie attack every episode, but I want the character stuff to be better written.
I think they dragged out the farm stuff way too long. Imagine if what was happening this weekend was the mid season finale instead. I think they could have easily cut the farm stuff in half and just kept the best stuff in and dropped all the filler. It just seems like the behind the scenes stuff is hurting the show. All the season 1 writers were fired, the budget was lowered, the showrunner was fired...not good!
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
The thing with the human drama, and conflict among the humans is that they need to be a bit more original and colorful with it. Some of it is good, and some isn't. I found the Maggie/Glen storyline kind of fresh, the whole thing about whether or not you should commit to a relationship in such a world and whether love is a liability is a new one on me. So I liked that, but a lot of the other stuff is kind of cliche or has been done before. The whole thing with Lori struggling with whether or not it's right to bring a baby into the zombie apocalypse or to have an abortion was covered in Dawn Of The Dead. Love triangles have probably been covered by every soap opera since the dawn of time. Whether or not suicide is a viable option has been covered, and executed far better than in this show.
And the whole "humans are more dangerous than zombies" has been done so much that it's becoming a cliche to fans of the zombie genre. It's like everybody who sets out to make a zombie movie is just trying to drive the point home that humans are dick-heads. Which is all well and good but after a while it's just beating a dead horse. It was the point of most of the Romero movies and so many others, notably 28 Days Later.
It's strange, but the most original zombie films to come out of the past 10-15 years have been comedies. Films that don't get too caught up in the inevitable drama and hidden messages about how we're bigger douchebags than flesh-eating zombies. Zombieland, Shaun Of The Dead and Fido have been truly original. Because they weren't too preachy, which seems to be a requirement for "serious" zombie films/shows since Romero. Although his first 3 have a good balance to them and aren't TOO preachy, but since then it seems that everybody who makes a zombie film has to have a message or follow the same cliches.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Minor thing, but I wonder why the word 'zombie' doesn't exist in TWD Universe. The main camp calls them walkers, and didn't Randall refer to them as movers?
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
Comments
2nd...it's either airborne or something with the blood
that is all
The characters don't know either _ we're all in the dark together.
Except of course, we have the advantage of a view from a boom, so we can see that herd heading right for Rick and Carl.
We will just have to agree to disagree there.
Uh-oh.
This is how Rick and Shane started off, agreeing to disagree with smilies.
Next thing you know, neilybabes and rrivers will be giving each other long, baleful stares.
Then they'll be duking it out in a parking lot.
And then finally... one of them becomes a zombie.
Personally I think it lies somewhere in the middle. There's some good acting, and some bad. Even by the same actor. Somebody will be brilliant one week and awkward to watch the next.
I agree with a lot of what you said in the previous post rrivers. And I think the writers need to find a good balance. It doesn't have to be either zombie heavy or no zombies at all, but they can't seem to find that middle ground, at least not this season. It seems like they flip-flop between the two extremes and very rarely balance it out. George Romero managed to find that balance in Night, Dawn and Day of The Dead. There were long stretches with no zombie action, but he always kept the threat feeling immediate.
That just begs the question, which one of them is going to knock-up the other's wife/girlfriend?
And ________________ shoots him in the head. Fill in the blank.
But there's no discounting rrivers' persistance and courage of conviction.
I'm thinking Neily does the knocking up, and rrivers ends up on the right side of the knife.
Can I be Carl?
Neily just has to realize I am in charge and follow my lead...and stay away from my wife and son!!!!
Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly.
No one is supervising you, so yeah!
And now I have a gun too...
I actually think the title isn't what you think it is. I think The Walking Dead refers to the characters, not the zombies.
I can't agree more about Lost. I was more annoyed with that show than anything, but it was a "must finish this" type of scenario. I hated when there were more questions than answers, and it stayed that way even after the series was over. I think what's in my corner on this is that I'm not a big fan of the zombie genre, so I'm ok with not a lot of zombie stuff. And I think not knowing how one becomes a zombie is a huge plot twist that's going to come up. I think they've done a great job hinting at it, and now showing how it happens. I think we're going to find out for sure at the finale.
I also don't get the complaints about the acting. What's wrong with the acting?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
*plans to sleep with one eye open*
Fair enough. I don't think the title refers to the characters, but if you do that's fine. Based on my thoughts about the rest of the show, I don't think it was thought about that deeply. I haven't read the comic, but I don't imagine the title was meant to refer to the still alive characters. To me, it just seems like a show about zombies, nothing too deep. And as I keep saying, go ahead! Make the show about zombies! That's why I started watching in the first place! (Actually, that's not completely true and I am pretty much over the whole zombie genre. The main reason I started watching it was because Darabont was running it and the first season gave me a high quality show that I have come to expect from him ( ie Shawshank, The Mist, etc.)
Glad to hear we at least agree on "Lost". That show ruined me for any show where they even hint at a mystery. Nope, not getting involved after that train wreck.
You might be right about how you actually become a zombie being a big plot twist or something that will be explained later. I thought someone else made a good point about us as viewers are following along with the characters because they don't know and we don't know. To me, this and other plot problems people in this thread have pointed out don't come off to me like there is a grand plan where things will be explained later but that they are just plot holes that weren't worked out by the writers. I feel by this time in the show we should know definitively if everyone who dies becomes a zombie or if you need to be biten. I talked with a friend about this and he read the comic. He told me he "assumes any recently dead person becomes a zombie and Dale didn't because they shot him in the head". Makes sense, but they didn't shoot Dale in the head to stop him from becoming a zombie, I took it that they shot him to put him out of his misery. But I have come across enough people who are questioning how one becomes a zombie that it seems to be a problem for more than me.
The Shane-turning-into-a-zombie felt like they wanted to surprise us and have Carl (Satansfuton) shoot him for the drama of it. It felt cheap to me, like it wasn't earned because we (maybe I should just say I) didn't know Shane was going to turn. Neither did the sherif, who I can't even remember his name.
Basically what this all boils down to for me, is I don't want to be watching the show and have something come up that takes me out of the story where I am questioning whether it makes sense. I understand we have to suspend disbelief (it's a zombie show for crying out loud!), but I'm talking about making sense within the confines of the universe they have created. This is my problem with the acting. I don't need the Royal Shakespeare company just some competent actors who, again, don't take me out of watching the show with how poorly I deem their acting. I find Shane, the sheriff, and Lori (the sheriff's wife) to be especially bad.
Thanks for the debate!
your're crazy
London 2013 "The Dundas Hookers on Crack" Show
the "how they become a zombie" hasn't been explained because it was actually explained in season one (being exposed to a zombie via a bite or a scratch). they didn't lie. it's just now SEEMS the virus has mutated (as many strong/resistant viruses do) to now be transferred through the air. otherwise every single dead person that Rick (the sheriff) came across in Atlanta would have been a walker.
I really don't think there are plot holes. I think this has been carefully plotted out. From what I can see, is that this isn't Lost. At least so far. If it was, we would have had a bunch of flashback episodes going through the history of the characters before the apocalypse or something of the like.
I think the main difference of people who are stioll captivated by this show and those that are bored by it in season 2 is how you look at the show and what you want from it. As I said, I was never a big zombie guy (never saw any of the big zombie movies, even to this day), but when I saw the trailers for this series, I was captivated by the story of human survival. But there are many others who look at the writer/creater of the show and are expecting something much different. I can appreciate that. I'm just glad it's going my way.
that said, I'm not going to bitch after the finale, which looks like a zombie-fest.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Even if it was explained at the end of season 1, there was enough confusion just on this thread to show people watching it wouldn't understand why Shane became a zombie.
And my expectations for this show are ridculously low and they continue to surprise me every week when the episodes don't even meet those low expectations. But that is one of the things that keeps me watching: to see how bad it will get.
I actually like that in this show. I don't like things being so obvious that they are spoon-fed to the audience. to me that's the "holy shit" factor of the show.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not asking to be spoon-fed, I'm asking for coherence.
I know that, I was just giving the other extreme example, that was all.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Tallahassee
Easily the greatest character in any zombie movie or show.
Except for maybe "zombie" Bill Murray
This! I still enjoy this show overall, but I don't think its living up to its potential at all. I think the second half of the season has been stronger than the first half, but my biggest gripe is that for the most part the non-zombie story lines just aren't very strong. This season has felt stagnant..like not a lot has really happened. We have one episode where they are going to leave Randall and debating what to do with them, then the next episode they spend the entire episode deciding what to do with him without making a decision, then it isn't until the end of the next episode that Shane kills him. We had the entire first half of the season spent looking for Sophia and people sick in bed. They shouldn't need zombies to make the show interesting, but most of the time, the show doesn't seem interesting when zombies aren't on the screen because the writing is lacking. My brother in law who has never seen the show before laughed at last week's episode...especially when Lori was talking to Shane and said she didn't know who the baby belonged to. He said it was like a bad soap opera with random moments of zombie violence. I think at times, it really is.
I think that AMC cutting the budget for season 2, pretty much forcing them to stay on the farm the entire season, didn't help at all.
I think we're kind've in the same boat about this season. I almost stopped watching after that zombie in the well episode. I don't want or need zombie attack after zombie attack every episode, but I want the character stuff to be better written.
I think they dragged out the farm stuff way too long. Imagine if what was happening this weekend was the mid season finale instead. I think they could have easily cut the farm stuff in half and just kept the best stuff in and dropped all the filler. It just seems like the behind the scenes stuff is hurting the show. All the season 1 writers were fired, the budget was lowered, the showrunner was fired...not good!
And the whole "humans are more dangerous than zombies" has been done so much that it's becoming a cliche to fans of the zombie genre. It's like everybody who sets out to make a zombie movie is just trying to drive the point home that humans are dick-heads. Which is all well and good but after a while it's just beating a dead horse. It was the point of most of the Romero movies and so many others, notably 28 Days Later.
It's strange, but the most original zombie films to come out of the past 10-15 years have been comedies. Films that don't get too caught up in the inevitable drama and hidden messages about how we're bigger douchebags than flesh-eating zombies. Zombieland, Shaun Of The Dead and Fido have been truly original. Because they weren't too preachy, which seems to be a requirement for "serious" zombie films/shows since Romero. Although his first 3 have a good balance to them and aren't TOO preachy, but since then it seems that everybody who makes a zombie film has to have a message or follow the same cliches.