Randomville

Arts and Entertainment => Television Talk => Topic started by: rva on November 15, 2010, 01:01:34 AM

Title: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on November 15, 2010, 01:01:34 AM
Thought I'd give it it's own topic since it seems a bunch of us are watching it.



1)  I know the hacksaw probably won't cut through handcuffs, but it sure would cut through the rebar the handcuff is attached to.  Or a thumb.

2)  This episode made me kind of hate everyone in it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on November 15, 2010, 02:59:48 PM
I'm loving the show so far.  But I'm kinda' the target audience, having already been a big fan of the graphic novels.  So far they've stayed pretty close to the story in the books.  Some of the shots in the show are almost exact re-creations of the ones in the book and the characters are dead on.  The show does stuff with the audio that is amazing and creates some really good tension that you can't get in the books.  It's also nice and cliff-hangery like the books.  When I first heard about this coming to TV, I was afraid it would be discounted as a throw away horror show or something.  I'm glad it's getting the viewer-ship it deserves.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nate on November 17, 2010, 02:10:15 AM
I have to read the graphic novels now.  LOVE this show.  Whomever is doing the TV programming at AMC deserves a medal.  3 for 3 so far.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on November 17, 2010, 11:02:16 AM
I'm not the target audience at all, but I've really been diggin' it.  But I agree with RVA that Sunday episode made me hate a LOT of the characters, especially the Rick's wife. I want to murder her face off.
I did enjoy the savage beating of that wife-slappin' goon, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 17, 2010, 11:05:38 AM
I said what you said about the hacksaw too, RVA.  That's just sloppy.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on November 17, 2010, 11:18:37 AM
That hacksaw bit was straight from Mad Max...what can you cut through faster...your wrist or the steel?  I think old dude was freaked out so bad by the zombies scrambling to get at him that he made the difficult choice.

I think the thing I love so much about any kind of zombie flick is that the zombies are monsters, but they don't even come close to the monsters that the survivors of the zombie apocalypse become when under the strain of trying to struggle and survive.  This show does that so much better because it chooses to develop the characters so well.  I couldn't bring myself to hate any of the characters because I can actually envision myself in their place and I probably wouldn't like the guy I would become were I in that situation.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 17, 2010, 11:31:17 AM
That hacksaw bit was straight from Mad Max...what can you cut through faster...your wrist or the steel? 

That half inch piece of steel would have been a whole lot easier to cut through than his arm dude, especially considering the how long all of that pain would make it take.

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on November 17, 2010, 11:45:32 AM
Quote
That half inch piece of steel would have been a whole lot easier to cut through than his arm dude, especially considering the how long all of that pain would make it take.

I agree.  Plus he still had the option of just cutting off his thumb which is more obviously easier than hacking off your hand, and less likely to kill you.

I can't really buy the panic thing either.  Because when the zombies showed up he still hadn't even gotten the hacksaw yet.  So by the time he finished dorking around trying to snag the hacksaw with the belt it should have been somewhat obvious he had some time.

It also seems like he could have gotten his pants off, thereby giving him a much longer reach as well as a heavier, wider, instrument with which to try and snag and drag a hacksaw or a gun.

The only decent explanation for me would be if someone else came along and hacked his hand off.

Quote
I couldn't bring myself to hate any of the characters because I can actually envision myself in their place and I probably wouldn't like the guy I would become were I in that situation.

Yeah, I can dig that.  I wasn't really trying to criticize the series or the characters so much as commenting on that one episode.  If it's done well, there should be episodes where everyone comes across as incompetent, evil, or whatever.  And also some episodes where we see their good sides.  As long as the overall ratio is somewhat in balance over the upcoming seasons, I got no problem with what they did on Sunday.

I like the Shane character.  That actor is doing a really good job.  But I'm with vizzah on Rick's wife.  So far I can't stand her-- either as a "person" or her presence on the show.  Hopefully they tighten that up.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on November 23, 2010, 09:27:02 AM
They put in a throwaway line to explain the saw in this week's episode... blade was too dull for the steel, but sharp enough to get through the arm.

I'm going with he was too stupid to think of just cutting the thumb.  Because he was.

Speaking of stupid, way to let your guard down, campers.  Sets up an interesting last couple of episodes to finish the season though, as they wait for the girl to turn into a zombie, or, I assume, race to get help for her.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on November 23, 2010, 11:23:39 AM
Sets up an interesting last couple of episodes to finish the season though, as they wait for the girl to turn into a zombie, or, I assume, race to get help for her.

I'd say it will be the former rather than the latter.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on November 24, 2010, 09:47:48 AM
Andrea's (the older sister) over-acting was downright painful to watch at the end.  Like, so bad that it made me uncomfortable.  And, regarding the boat dialog at the beginning, I think my lovely husband put it best:
"man, that one gal seeing her sister die on the walking dead must have been in as much pain as I was during their fishing talk in the intro."
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 24, 2010, 10:28:15 AM
So Julie and her sister's theory is that dude from the rooftop lured the zombies to their camp.  I think it's plausible.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on November 24, 2010, 10:32:20 AM
That was my first thought too, but I somehow don't think that's the case.  There were a ton of plot holes in that zombie swarm.  Their little tin-can alarm system didn't work for them.  Nobody was on watch.  If I was a survivor of the zombie apocalypse, I sure as hell wouldn't be camped out in the open with no guard.  Dumbasses.  I can't wait until next week :)
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on November 24, 2010, 12:30:28 PM
Andrea's (the older sister) over-acting was downright painful to watch at the end.  Like, so bad that it made me uncomfortable.  And, regarding the boat dialog at the beginning, I think my lovely husband put it best:
"man, that one gal seeing her sister die on the walking dead must have been in as much pain as I was during their fishing talk in the intro."

Yeah, I totally agree.  I don't think it was the actresses fault though, they just gave her nothing to work with.  It was also stupid to me from a plot standpoint.  Yeah, smear yourself with zombie-infected blood.  Just run your hands through it as much as possible. 

I'm becoming disturbed at all the plot holes.  Like Doug said, it shouldn't have been so easy for the zombies to get through the defenses.  I'm also unclear as to why they sent a group to the city in the first place.  They knew there was nothing there, they were somewhat surprised and happy when they came back.  They didn't want Rick going back, even when he had a semi-concrete goal in mind to bring back guns.  So what was the point in sending that first group out there?  Near as I can tell, they were just hanging out in that store, doing pretty much nothing with no car or means of escape and they all would have died without Rick.

I liked the bit with the vatos, though. They had their act together much more than Rick's group.  I mean, the odds were pretty high they were going to die in the city, but they sorta knew that so it wasn't just dumbassery like the others.  But since they turned out to be kinda cool and all, and considering Rick respected them, and considering they had some of the guns and ammo.... why not give them a CB channel and codeword or something so you can stay in contact before splitting?  Maybe they did and they just skipped over it.  If so, I guess we'll be seeing those guys again.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on November 24, 2010, 01:14:00 PM
The whole thing of living in a field so close to a majorly messed up zombified city just doesn't make any sense to me.
I plotted about this last night when I couldn't sleep.
I'd go to the suburbs, block off streets, yards, whatever with cars/construction equipment, and dumpsters and whatever else I could get my hands on.  Overturned busses seemed like a really good idea last night.
You could eventually clear out the whole town and fence the whole thing off like a fortress.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Buzzstein on November 24, 2010, 10:56:16 PM
Andrea's (the older sister) over-acting was downright painful to watch at the end.  Like, so bad that it made me uncomfortable.  And, regarding the boat dialog at the beginning, I think my lovely husband put it best:
"man, that one gal seeing her sister die on the walking dead must have been in as much pain as I was during their fishing talk in the intro."

I agree. That opening scene was annoying.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on November 28, 2010, 08:19:52 PM
I just love when the blood splatter ends up on the camera lens.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on November 28, 2010, 11:31:03 PM
I believe the role of the CDC is being played by the Aquarium.

(I like that it was actually filmed in Georgia.)
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on November 29, 2010, 11:08:10 AM
All I could think of is how freakin' loud that must have been to be sitting with my face pressed up to a zombie and to stick a gun right up to it's head and pull the trigger.  That would probably blow an eardrum, not to mention the powder and gas escaping from the gun and chance of a possible ricochet in the skull, causing the bullet to come flying out the face or splattering infected crap all over your own face.  Sure, it was dramatic, but freakishly stupid.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on November 30, 2010, 12:26:35 PM
All I could think of is how freakin' loud that must have been to be sitting with my face pressed up to a zombie and to stick a gun right up to it's head and pull the trigger.  That would probably blow an eardrum, not to mention the powder and gas escaping from the gun and chance of a possible ricochet in the skull, causing the bullet to come flying out the face or splattering infected crap all over your own face.  Sure, it was dramatic, but freakishly stupid.

It's not like she had the gun next to her ear.  It was about where it would be if you were firing it straight ahead.  The general lack of concern for cross-contamination seems to be a theme.  Very interested in the final show, to see what light can be shed on things by the CDC guy, which will no doubt set a course for Season 2.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on November 30, 2010, 01:01:04 PM
So... what we should we do?
Let's go to Atlanta.  The CDC is there.
Yeah, great idea!  I'm going!
*later*
Ohhhhh shit!  Atlanta is really dangerous.  GETOUTGETOUTGETOUT!

So... what should we do?
I know! let's go back to Atlanta!
*later*
Ohhhhh shit!  Atlanta is really dangerous.  GETOUTGETOUTGETOUT!
Hey if you are listening on CB?  Dooooon't go to Atlanta!  For the love of God, dooooon't go to Atlanta!

So... what should we do?
I know!  Let's go to the CDC center in Atlanta!
Hey if you are listening on CB?  We're going to Atlanta!  Meet us in Atlanta! 
*later*
Ohhhhh shit!  Atlanta is really dangerous.  Fuckfuckfuckfuck
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 30, 2010, 01:22:02 PM
LOL... I was thinking that, thanks for the outline though, just punctuates how stupid it is.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on November 30, 2010, 02:13:21 PM
It's not like she had the gun next to her ear.  It was about where it would be if you were firing it straight ahead.  The general lack of concern for cross-contamination seems to be a theme.  Very interested in the final show, to see what light can be shed on things by the CDC guy, which will no doubt set a course for Season 2.

It looked like it was 6 inches from her face.  And, yes, I constantly think about cross contamination.  I mean that dude with the pick ax...that stuff is just flying everywhere, getting on the camera lens and everything.  I'm also excited about the finale and a more leisurely unfolding season 2.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on November 30, 2010, 03:34:24 PM
All I could think of is how freakin' loud that must have been to be sitting with my face pressed up to a zombie and to stick a gun right up to it's head and pull the trigger.  That would probably blow an eardrum, not to mention the powder and gas escaping from the gun and chance of a possible ricochet in the skull, causing the bullet to come flying out the face or splattering infected crap all over your own face.  Sure, it was dramatic, but freakishly stupid.

Ditto. Strictly from a safety standpoint, this is an insanely stupid thing (not to mention stupid just to have to watch).  It's the equivalent of having a sizable explosion happen within a foot or so of your face, with your eyes and eardrums unprotected. 
That's not the first beef I've had with firearm safety on the show, though. they need to be more thorough with their research or get someone who knows guns in on the writing.
In one of the first episodes, Rick goofs on Andrea for pointing the gun at people meaningfully, but with the safety on.  Problem is, she's pointing a glock, and glocks don't have a safety. 

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on November 30, 2010, 07:24:12 PM
Yeah, i keep thinking how in 28 days later that one guy got infected by that single drop of blood falling into his eye
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on November 30, 2010, 08:03:33 PM
The glock thing happened in the first episode with the deputy.  Rick says something about the safety and then takes the gun and does something with it (racks the slide?  How and why?) and then hands it back to him.

Laurie Holden has a 9mm Smith and Wesson 3913 Ladysmith, which is the exact gun I'd probably get if I were to purchase one.  I have small hands and can't fire a Glock worth a damn, whereas I can use a 3913 at least half a damn, maybe even three-quarters.  And it does have a safety.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Buzzstein on December 01, 2010, 12:49:12 PM
They are starting to lose me. Guess I'll ride it out and see where the show goes.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on December 01, 2010, 03:18:56 PM
Laurie Holden has a 9mm Smith and Wesson 3913 Ladysmith

Ok, I'm dying to know. Can you tell that just by looking at it, or do you have another source on this?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on December 01, 2010, 03:37:04 PM
I've finally caught up with this show, and I am not sure about it.  I was REALLY hyped for it based on the fact that the comic serious is absolutely wonderful, but I'm just not sure about the TV series.  The series is taking a completely different direction from the comics, and I'm not sure if I like it.  I just am not sure at all about this trip to the CDC and everything that could come with it.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on December 01, 2010, 03:58:57 PM
Laurie Holden has a 9mm Smith and Wesson 3913 Ladysmith

Ok, I'm dying to know. Can you tell that just by looking at it, or do you have another source on this?


I could tell just looking at it because I've fired that gun and really liked it.  I even owned one for a very brief time before I sold it to my friend, and sometimes wish I could get it back.

But should you ever have an entertainment firearms based question, you can always consult the
IMFDB (http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Main_Page)
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on December 01, 2010, 04:27:44 PM
I could tell just looking at it because I've fired that gun and really liked it.  I even owned one for a very brief time before I sold it to my friend, and sometimes wish I could get it back.

But should you ever have an entertainment firearms based question, you can always consult the
IMFDB (http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Main_Page)

Thanks for the link!  We could have sworn it was a glock (I mistook it for a slick looking .45 at first), so good to know.  Can't wait to tell my neighbor/BFF who nearly had a conniption over this.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: c-lando on December 02, 2010, 08:41:23 AM
I believe the role of the CDC is being played by the Aquarium.

(I like that it was actually filmed in Georgia.)
Nope. It's at the Cobb Energy Center in the Cumberland area. It's right by the movie theatre at Parkway Point. :) At one point during the construction of that building, I thought about taking a daily photo of the progress. I wish I had done that. Would have been cool to have it now that the building is nerd-famous because of this show.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: c-lando on December 02, 2010, 08:49:49 AM
Oh...and I've finally managed to watch the show (only one night of zombiemares!) and get caught up. Sometimes I love it and sometimes I hate it. I kinda wish we'd get flashbacks to learn more about these characters but I guess that would be too Lostie.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on December 02, 2010, 09:03:16 AM
Someone else pointed out that the CDC is actually 7 miles outside Atlanta, refuting rva's amusing mini-rant... but it sure looked like it was supposed to be in or very near downtown Atlanta to me.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: c-lando on December 02, 2010, 09:17:16 AM
Someone else pointed out that the CDC is actually 7 miles outside Atlanta, refuting rva's amusing mini-rant... but it sure looked like it was supposed to be in or very near downtown Atlanta to me.
See above. The building they are using as the CDC is in Cobb County. The 'burbs, but a very populated 'burb with lots of high rise office buildings.

I want to know where the hell this quarry is. They mentioned that it was NW of the city, which is where I live/work. At first, I thought they were filming at Providence Canyon but you could never see the city from there. So, this quarry must be somewhere around the city.

Found it: Bellwood Quarry.
http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/misc/quarry.htm
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on December 02, 2010, 09:40:38 AM
I meant the real CDC.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: c-lando on December 02, 2010, 09:56:45 AM
I meant the real CDC.
Oops. Sorry.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on December 02, 2010, 10:54:05 AM
They apparently fired all the writers.  Thank God. 

The fishing scene was apalling.  First of all, there wouldn't be any fish in that quarry, unless someone stocked it.  Which is easily possible, but still... it wouldn't be a sure thing.  And anyone who fishes would take one look at that pond and be pretty skeptical that there's any fish in it.  It just looks completely sterile.

Second, there is no such thing as a "dry lure."  And no one fly fishes by simple tossing a "dry lure" over the side of a canoe and just sitting there.  What they should have been doing is bait casting.  And no one gives a crap what not you use to tie things.  That's only in fly fishing.  That whole scene and conversation made absolutely no fucking sense to anyone who has ever fished. 

And it went for like five minutes just so we could get "He knew you needed to catch fish and I needed to throw them back."  WTF?  It doesn't even make sense. 

Really, the writing has been abysmal since the first episode and it was getting even worse.  If either of the last two episodes had been the premier, this show never would have gotten off the ground.  They've just been coasting off the momentum of that superb first episode.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on December 02, 2010, 10:57:38 AM

Ditto err'thing rva said.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on December 02, 2010, 09:38:26 PM
I believe the role of the CDC is being played by the Aquarium.

(I like that it was actually filmed in Georgia.)
Nope. It's at the Cobb Energy Center in the Cumberland area. It's right by the movie theatre at Parkway Point. :) At one point during the construction of that building, I thought about taking a daily photo of the progress. I wish I had done that. Would have been cool to have it now that the building is nerd-famous because of this show.
What, something I read on the internet was wrong?!

:D

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on December 06, 2010, 08:11:37 PM
Spoilery thoughts on the last episode:


1)  I dug it.  It was a somewhat easy episode to write, though.  Any sort of irrational behavior could be explained by people either being drunk, thinking they were saved, or knowledge that you're screwed and actually wanting to die.

2)  Why do they always have crazy timing on things like this?  It's not that easy to sprint down a bunch of hallways, up a bunch of stairs, take a bunch of hacks at a window with an axe and then detonate a grenade, run a block or so away and get to your car in like four minutes.  Why not just add like five or ten minutes to the clock?  It would have been the same exciting and narrow escape, just more believable.  A minor quibble, but still kind of annoying.

3)  Rick *knows* there's more out there than it appears because he saw something in the second episode.  Maybe the other camp people don't believe him, but the doctor might. Wouldn't that possibly have changed the doctor's mind about wanting to die, or at least activated his sense of duty earlier?  I don't know; maybe not. Interesting that he didn't play that card though.

4)  I totally would have been cool dying in the blast.  I mean, not so cool with being forced to die but if the explanation were given and a choice provided I would have died with the doctor.






Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on December 06, 2010, 08:43:52 PM
I don't remember what you're talking about in #3
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 07, 2010, 07:55:13 AM
Ditto
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on December 07, 2010, 07:55:23 AM
I don't remember what you're talking about in #3

The helicopter.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on December 07, 2010, 08:52:15 AM
I like how they set it up for next season.  I just hope they tone down the melodrama a bit, and ratchet up the zombie danger.  I want to see less marriage strife and more brains eatin'.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on December 07, 2010, 09:35:14 AM
I think there will probably a lot more marriage strife.  I'm guessing the doctor told Rick his wife was pregnant.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on December 07, 2010, 01:39:42 PM
holy crap, didn't think of that RVA!

it would be the buddy's kid.  I mean, if this is day 164, that puts Rick in the coma around 5 months.  Could be more, since we don't know how long he was in the coma before the zombie stuff started.   

I was originally thinking that it was that the surviving sister had the zombies, but the previews for this are as tricky as the ones for Mad Men, and they didn't act like that on the actual show, just the preview for the finale.  Figured all that blood from her sister might have ...I don't know, infected her by osmosis or something?

I had also totally forgotten about the helecopter.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on December 07, 2010, 02:52:21 PM
Well, it's just a guess on my part.  It seems to make the most sense as a plot device, but I could be totally wrong.  Maybe the writers don't even know.  They just wrote that in as a cool cliff-hanger and they'll figure out what to do with it later.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on December 07, 2010, 03:05:33 PM
holy crap, didn't think of that RVA!

 I mean, if this is day 164, that puts Rick in the coma around 5 months.  Could be more, since we don't know how long he was in the coma before the zombie stuff started.   


But, how do we know their timeline (as in, how much real time is passing with each episode)?  If Rick has been at camp with his wife for two or more weeks, it could easily be him, too.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on December 07, 2010, 03:20:24 PM
I was thinking that he made it to camp, then the next day they went back for the guy on the roof.  The day after that was the zombie attack on the camp, and they left that next day to get help for the guy who was bitten.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on December 07, 2010, 05:18:56 PM
This is what happens if I write the series:

What the doctor whispered to Rick is that he was lying about "no surprises."  Rick actually has zombie germ.  He *did* die, or come real close.  That's why Shane didn't hear a heartbeat. 

Thing is, Rick also has some kind of zombie virus/fungi/bacteria resistance.  That's why the doctor let him go.  He couldn't understand how Rick's blood showed zombie infestation signs yet Rick was healthy... so there was hope for humanity after all.

So Rick sweats it out for a few hours trying to figure out if he's going to die or if the doctor was lying or mistaken or what.  Then he wonders whether he should tell the others.  That'll be part of the storyline for awhile.

Longer term, it turns out that the survivors are broken into two types--  Those who are immune to the zombies, and those who merely managed not get infected (yet).  Obviously those who are immune have a big survival advantage.

BUT it turns out some agency can figure out who is immune and is hunting them down to try and create a vaccine.  And this agency is a lot more competent than the zombies.  That's where the helicopter came from.  So the immune guys have their own problems and in fact jeopardize the non-immune by both attracting human killers and by possibly getting zombie crud and unknowingly passing it on via sex or bathing in zombified waters or sharing food or whatnot.

So this sets up all sorts of tensions between the mystery helicopter agencies, the immune, the non-immune, and the various scattered survivor gangs who may be immune, non-immune, a mix, or not even know. 

After 2-3 seasons of warring and conflict, it turns out the helicopters belong to the Syndicate.  And the only person with superawesome immunity that can be passed on to children is Laurie Holden because the virus is similar to Black Oil.  And the only person Laurie Holden can have sex with is me, because I'm writing the show and I think she's hot.  So in the final episode, I have sex with Laurie Holden like twenty times (not shown) and the world is saved!  Plus she gives me her S&W 3913 to remember her by.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: vizzah on December 07, 2010, 09:11:02 PM
I was thinking that he made it to camp, then the next day they went back for the guy on the roof.  The day after that was the zombie attack on the camp, and they left that next day to get help for the guy who was bitten.

Gotchya.  I think my assumption was that more time was passing between episodes/events, like maybe a few days.

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nate on December 07, 2010, 09:25:23 PM
I think they're plotting the show based on the graphic novels.  So read them if you want to know what happens next.  :p
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on December 08, 2010, 12:47:09 PM
But please don't post here unless you use a spoiler tag, and tell us that you're spoilering based on the novels.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2010, 01:33:54 PM
If I were you guys, I'd read the graphic novels.  I don't think it will take anything away from the experience of watching the show.  Plus, you have like a whole year before the next season.  The suspense would kill me.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rva on December 08, 2010, 02:58:53 PM
I thought they were saying the show doesn't really tracking the graphic novels very closely?

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 08, 2010, 03:01:50 PM
What I read said that as well RVA.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2010, 03:12:50 PM
Like I said, I don't think it will take anything away from watching the show.  So far they've pulled bits and pieces from the books, but the story is subtly different.  If anything, reading the books would probably deepen your appreciation of the story, characters, etc.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on December 08, 2010, 03:34:29 PM
I don't know, the AV Club made a big thing about asking commenters to refrain from spoiling stuff that was from the books, then made an even bigger deal when people actually did start spoiling.
To the point where they actually said "don't read the comments because they will spoil the show"
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2010, 03:56:21 PM
Well as much as you like the Gunslinger series of graphic novels, I would hate to see you deprive yourself from reading The Walking Dead books, just because there's a TV show adapted from them.  Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on December 08, 2010, 04:18:49 PM
The Tv show definitely isn't following the books faithfully (for example the entire CDC thing was not in the comics at all), but the general storyline seems to be following it.  But some things like Amy dying follows the comic.

Possible Spoiler from comic:
For example you can definitely tell in the build of Shane that it may eventually lead to him being shot by Carl, which is what happened in the comics.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on December 08, 2010, 09:36:21 PM
Well as much as you like the Gunslinger series of graphic novels, I would hate to see you deprive yourself from reading The Walking Dead books, just because there's a TV show adapted from them.  Just a suggestion.

There's going to be a tv show?!?
I actually didn't keep up with the comics.  I just couldn't make it to a comic book store on a regular enough basis
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nate on December 09, 2010, 04:55:17 AM
Yeah, it's actually an interesting idea.  Three films combined with a network TV show.  They will both be connected.

Quote
The plan is to start with the feature film, and then create a bridge to the second feature with a season of TV episodes. That means the feature cast—and the big star who’ll play Deschain—also has to appear in the TV series before returning to the second film. After that sequel is done, the TV series picks up again, this time focusing on Deschain as a young gunslinger. Those storylines will be informed by a prequel comic book series that King was heavily involved in plotting. The third film would pick up the mature Deshain as he completes his journey. They will benefit from being able to use the same sets cast and crew for the movie and TV, which could help contain costs on what will be a financially ambitious undertaking.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on November 01, 2011, 08:05:36 AM
The show was starting to get on my nerves a little bit, but they totally redeemed themselves with the last one.  Shane's descent into madness FTW.  Even if I did wonder how they found white bread for Rick's sandwich after months with no outside contact, it was still well worth it.  Though I wish this season was less about 2 days lost in the forest and more about finding out if there is any organized civilization still left anywhere.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 01, 2011, 08:22:32 AM
I liked how he left the hot shower running while he went crazy and shaved his head... cause you'd totally do that with gas, water, heat and electricity at a premium.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Buzzstein on November 24, 2011, 02:35:51 PM
The show is starting to annoy me.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Poncho on November 24, 2011, 10:52:45 PM
Dragging out every single point for as long as possible... this show went from awesome to mind-numbing in a matter of a few episodes.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on November 26, 2011, 09:53:49 AM
I'm still digging it.
It can get frustrating, sure, but there's just enough tension and zombie action to keep me interested.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bubba McBubba on November 26, 2011, 12:03:27 PM
Heads up: this will be all-spoiler, but then you probably shouldn't be reading a thread about a show unless you're actually keeping up with it (just saying...).

I was reading the books before the season one began, and I was surprised by how much I was hooked (and continue to be) on the print series.

I'm glad the TV series is not following the books with 100% fidelity to the source material; otherwise, I don't see why there would be much of a point in translating something from one medium to another.

That said, season one went in some interesting new directions (CDC, Earl), and some that were not.  My biggest problem is with the characters, especially Andrea, who is my favorite character in the books and my least favorite on the show.  In the books, she is one of the youngest and yet one of the most competent of the survivors, and she gradually builds an impressive skill set.  On the show, the character is incredibly annoying, given some of the worst dialogue in the show (in a show that already has too much overblown dialogue) and the actress (who I thought was one of the best performers in "The Mist") is just awful.

I mentioned dialogue and that brings to mind another complaint: what is the deal with the theological discussion in each episode of this season?  These conversations feel tacked on in an attempt to add depth to the show, but this is a show about zombies.  This is about survival.  This show should not aspire for anything more than the subtle messages of Romero's "...of the Dead" movies.  And don't get me started on when these conversations tend to happen.  Hey, while we're running for our lives or trying to rescue a little girl from certain death, let's just hunker down here and chew the fat about God.

So far, season two has been a mess.  I like how it went back to a plotline from the books, as the survivors find Hershel's farm (and Glen finds Maggie).  Unfortunately, the producers decided to fill an entire season with two or three episodes of material.  For example, the entire incident with the zombie in the well was ridiculous in just about every way conceivable and was simply there to fill time without advancing the plot.

Same goes for the "Sophia is lost in the woods" element of this season.  Everything about this whiffs of time-filler.  It is things like this are quickly making the show into something like the early third season episodes of Lost, where it was obvious nobody had any clear idea where the show was going and every new conflict was simply a diversion from the main storyline.

Which leads me to the same problem Lost discovered early on: what do you do with the children on the show?   They're obviously going to age faster than the other actors, which limits your possibilities for use and may even decide the direction of the show.  Because of this, I believe they are going to find Sophia in the last episode of this season, and that she will be a zombie.  And I believe Carol (her mother) is going to let Sophia attack her, thereby reuniting them forever. 

I know this sounds incredibly pessimistic but this brings me to my final beef about the show's current course.  Those who have been following the books know (almost )anything goes.  It is pretty shocking (especially in the first few books) just how expendable characters, even major ones, can be.  The show, on the other hand, plays it much safer and I think that greatly diminishes the impact it could have.  I keep feeling exasperated that this or that character is still alive this deep into the second season.  The show is only intriguing if there's that constant element of danger and uncertainty and, to maintain that vibe, the show should start killing off some major characters in order to shake it (and the viewers) out of the comfort zone.

But when all is said and done, I'm still watching the show and (much like Lost) I enjoy having something new to obsess over and analyze, even if I'm complaining about it.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nate on November 27, 2011, 02:52:13 AM
I think they're going to kill off major characters.  IMO, it's going to start with the next episode.  (If anyone's read the books, you know exactly who is not going to be around when this thing starts up again in the Spring).  My wife has not read the books, and she's enjoying the series so far.  For most viewers, I think that's the norm.  TWD is the highest rated TV show on AMC.  More viewers than Breaking Bad.  More viewers than Mad Men.  If it sucked, I think it would have been pulled by now.

The only reason there's a five-month break in the season is because there's no new Mad Men episodes this year, which sucks.  Next week is the last one until the end of March.  Which is also why I think tonight's episode is going to be awesome.  Action galore, characters will be killed off.  Shit finally goes down.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Poncho on November 27, 2011, 06:42:35 PM
If it followed the books, Shane would've been dead in the first episode.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Buzzstein on November 28, 2011, 12:10:29 PM
FINALLY something happened this season! It's about goddamn time.

And yeah, I was wondering if zombie Sophia was in the barn.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 28, 2011, 01:23:32 PM
I was happy with last night's ep.  Certainly sets up some interesting possibilities for February.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Buzzstein on November 28, 2011, 03:06:43 PM
I was happy with last night's ep.  Certainly sets up some interesting possibilities for February.

Oh no. We have to wait until February for new episodes??
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 28, 2011, 03:16:49 PM
Yes, last night was the "mid-season finale".
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on November 28, 2011, 09:40:52 PM
Can we agree to keep the graphic novel stuff in the spoiler tags at least?

I know they're wildly divergent on some things,  but following them in other areas, so please?  thanks. best friends!


and holy freaking shit that finale twist was insane last night.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on December 14, 2011, 12:22:05 PM
got the fall season on dvr. gonna watch it over xmas break.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 12, 2012, 09:34:43 AM
Wow... this has been quite a season.  Didn't see Dale's death coming... really liked his character.  Glad Rick finally dealt with Shane, though, what choice did he really have?  I wish Carl would go ahead and bite it, I'm sick of him.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Predot on March 12, 2012, 11:45:21 AM
Wow... this has been quite a season.  Didn't see Dale's death coming... really liked his character.  Glad Rick finally dealt with Shane, though, what choice did he really have?  I wish Carl would go ahead and bite it, I'm sick of him.

Interesting choices to kill off two of the characters responsible for most of the friction within the group. Obviously they will be back on the road after the walkers invade the farm next week. I suppose they'll have to pick up some new members of the group to rebuild some of the tension (though it will also help remembering that some of the other characters, such as T-Dawg, exist).

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on March 12, 2012, 02:53:33 PM
Well, in comparison to the comic, they are actually not killing characters fast enough. :-)

I was disappointed they killed Dale, mainly because they never got around to him and Andrea becoming a couple like they did in the comics.  And Shane was killed off really early in the comics, so that didn't shock me too bad.

If they are going to the prison (which was mentioned in one episode) they should pick up some good characters.  I have heard talk of adding Michonne and hopefully Thomas and Axel will be in there as well.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Buzzstein on March 12, 2012, 03:03:39 PM
Interesting. They got rid of the biggest pains in the asses.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Predot on March 12, 2012, 03:16:11 PM
Well, in comparison to the comic, they are actually not killing characters fast enough. :-)


I never read any of the comics.* So I don't have any basis for comparison.

* If you don't count the graphic novels I read as a pre-teen detailing the dark and seedy goings on at Riverdale High, I've never read any comics.

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Dan on March 12, 2012, 03:40:32 PM
Just because I was looking through the bizarre images thread and saw this again:

(http://i.imgur.com/q5zVv.jpg)
GRRAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNSSSSSS!
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 12, 2012, 03:58:10 PM
I was disappointed they killed Dale, mainly because they never got around to him and Andrea becoming a couple like they did in the comics.  And Shane was killed off really early in the comics, so that didn't shock me too bad.


I for one, am glad they skipped this.  I don't think TV Dale was interested.  I also kind of hate TV Andrea.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nate on March 19, 2012, 11:15:01 PM
What if one-armed Pete (Randall's bro) plays a huge part in season 3?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on March 20, 2012, 07:25:58 AM
What if one-armed Pete (Randall's bro) plays a huge part in season 3?
Well, Kirkman did pretty much confirm that Merle was coming back in season 3 on the Talking Dead.  I could easily see him being in the group with the Governor, who is confirmed for season 3.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Fourthisto on March 20, 2012, 08:45:59 AM
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m12s1iOlC41r5d224o1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on March 20, 2012, 10:21:17 PM
Just watched the last 6 episodes over the past 2 days. Whoa! I'm guessing that was the prison in the closing shot.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 20, 2012, 11:55:30 PM
All the characters have a tendency to annoy me, either because they act in maddeningly inconsistent ways that you would expect people to do in extreme situations (which is good) and also admittedly also because the writing is sometimes bad (which is bad).

Good example would be Dale.  I get why he was acting the way he did (and I agreed with his position), but really did it need to go on for so long?  I really didn't need to see multiple speeches on it.  By the end of that sequence I wanted to shoot him myself just to shut him up.

But overall, I'd say that I'm still more often "good" frustrated than "bad" frustrated with the show... except for Lori.  I hate her.  I hate the character she's supposed to be even if they wrote her right which they dont, which means  I hate the writing for the character, and I also hate the actress.  I hate everything about her.  Nothing she does makes any sense or is carried off with any conviction. 

So that puts my continued watching of this series in jeopardy.  I really only held on through the last episode (which was really good) on the faint hope that someone would kill her in a really painful manner or that Lauren Cohen might get naked or something.

I hate T-Dog almost as much just because he's so pointless and so obviously the token black guy.  But at least being token, he's not in my face as much and I'm hoping he'll get a larger role at some point. 
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on March 21, 2012, 07:33:12 AM
I agree with just about everything you wrote there, rva.  Except that my continued watching of the series is not in jeopardy.  I thought they paid off the long, boring parts of the season just about as well as you could.  I also like the fact that unlike most shows, you never know who is going to die next.  Aside from Rick (who I imagine is pretty untouchable), seems like just about anybody could die at any time.

Hopefully Lori is next.  Please, God... let it be Lori.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 21, 2012, 08:11:40 AM
Agree with Butter 100%.  I'm not deterred from watching in the slightest but I also hope to see Lori die in an agonizing manner.  I'm guessing that as long as she's pregnant and we don't know if there's a zombie in there or not that she's untouchable as well.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Fourthisto on March 21, 2012, 08:38:41 AM
Yes Ella, that would be the prison looming in background, the setting of the very near future. Things are going to get pretty interesting soon, breaking out of the farm took forever but the second half of the season really clicked.

But at least being token, he's not in my face as much and I'm hoping he'll get a larger role at some point. 

The good thing about being "the token" is that he's not in your face as much, but you hope he will be at some point?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 21, 2012, 10:13:20 AM
Yes.  Because if he is given a larger role then his character will be fleshed out and have something to do and he will no longer be token.

Now fuck off.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Fourthisto on March 21, 2012, 11:52:39 AM
He'll be fleshed out, alright, but he won't be around at all after that, princess.  :-*
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TayFo on March 21, 2012, 05:37:16 PM
what kind of prison has it turned into? Alien 3 prison? Max Max prison? Shawshank?

(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/3/20/16/enhanced-buzz-23507-1332274785-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on March 22, 2012, 10:58:50 AM
sheesh. lori's character could be so awesome, but she's the epitome of everything wrong with a female tv character.

insists on being in a love triangle. basically says shane needs to be dead, then recoils in horror after the deed is done. doesn't appear to have a original thought in her head, content to support her husband and be the queen bee. cliche female tv lead. even giving birth to a zombie baby that bites her vagina won't redeem her. i want her eaten by zombies soon.

t-dawg: cliche token black guy. we know more about every other character than him. lame.

finally, off of that damned farm. and it was woefully underprepared for a zombie hoard. why were they not working on defenses for the entire fall? unforgivable, and if they're so worried about not being found, why not make some imposing defenses? lame plot and lazy writing. cows should've been zombie magnets all through this story arc.

i don't like how the "group" welcomes others when it suits the writers, but murders another groups member later in the show, without preparing any type of defense of the farm. although i was entertained, it was a glaring pot hole once i thought about it.

and it's about time for them to stop relying on guns, ammo has got to be in small supply, they need to address the issue which they've skirted around and move onto zombie killing without guns.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TayFo on March 22, 2012, 03:38:39 PM
t-dawg: cliche token black guy. we know more about every other character than him. lame.
(http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2012/3/20/16/enhanced-buzz-9028-1332275327-5.jpg)
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on November 06, 2012, 12:57:18 PM
Hopefully Lori is next.  Please, God... let it be Lori.

Welp....  that was pretty rough.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Fourthisto on November 06, 2012, 01:00:51 PM
Yeah, last season it was "DO IT ALREADY!!", but last episode was so raw that you couldn't help but wince.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 06, 2012, 01:52:19 PM
I ventured on to facebook yesterday morning before I'd seen the episode and had Lori and T-Dawg's dealths spoiled for me.  Oh well, glad to see Lori go, couldn't stand her.  T-Dawg, I won't miss because I barely noticed he was there.  They have a couple of new token black guys so, you know, they're keeping up with their quota.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on November 06, 2012, 02:49:45 PM


*spoiler*

T-Dog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on February 15, 2013, 11:30:14 AM
My son got me and my wife hooked on this over the weekend - wow, I like it!
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on March 11, 2013, 12:41:20 PM
saving the whole season to watch on dvr during spring break.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on November 04, 2013, 08:13:02 PM
I find it interesting that now that the TV series has basically completely left the plot of the comic books, the show is now really starting to feel like the comic. This season has been incredible so far and it has really hit it's stride.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on November 05, 2013, 07:13:27 AM
I agree.  I watched all 4 of this season's episodes on Sunday, and I thought that aside from the pilot, this is the best this series has ever been.  I know some people had said "how can you make their everyday lives interesting?" as far as just going on supply runs and general maintenance of their hideout and such.  Well, they've done it.  Lots going on with characters, with plot, and all of it has been very well done and more than that, hasn't seemed like they were stalling a plot point just to make the season a certain length.

Seeing this season makes me realize how little I liked seasons 2 & 3.  The whole Governor plotline just seemed to take forever for me, and don't get me started on the farm.  It was Andrea (the character, not my lovely wife) that really got on my nerves that whole time, I guess.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on December 02, 2013, 01:30:40 PM
Excellent mid-season finale last night! I really had a feeling that a main character or two was going to get it..........
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TayFo on December 02, 2013, 02:02:57 PM
Right? From the opening it was all "This shit is about to get real".
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 02, 2013, 02:17:15 PM
As a standalone episode, it was pretty good.

From a series standpoint, there was really no reason to bring the governor back and waste two episodes on him only to have him die in a stupid assault on the prison that he was trying to do when he got defeated in the first place.  It pretty much makes the entire first half of this season a waste.

Whole series has been like that.  The cool action episodes where there's lots of shooting and dying and tension are great.  The plot development is terrible.  I don't know why they don't just turn it into an old school non-serial action show where the problems resolve themselves in one episode and you can watch them in any order.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on December 03, 2013, 07:25:06 AM
From a series standpoint, there was really no reason to bring the governor back and waste two episodes on him only to have him die in a stupid assault on the prison that he was trying to do when he got defeated in the first place.  It pretty much makes the entire first half of this season a waste.

They spent most of the season trying to recover from their failure to resolve the Governor storyline at the end of Season 3.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 03, 2013, 08:25:08 AM
Yeah, it would have made a whole lot more sense to kill him off in season 3.  Just before he bought it I told Julie there was no way he was going to die since they'd just invested so much time in him.  Dumb writing.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Fourthisto on December 03, 2013, 09:48:52 AM
Glad that half-season ended with a bang... the episodes leading up to that reminded me of all that time wasted on the farm. Zzzz city.

I don't know why they don't just turn it into an old school non-serial action show where the problems resolve themselves in one episode and you can watch them in any order.

Actually, I think they might be doing that - all of the people fleeing from the prison, broken into different groups - why not have every (or at least the first five/six) episode of the 2nd half focus on a different group, even include Carol? Would be a nice departure from the character orgy that the prison became.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Buzzstein on December 03, 2013, 10:56:51 AM
I have a feeling we will see Carol again -- alive even.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 03, 2013, 11:10:13 AM
I don't think there's any doubt about that at all.  She'll turn up before the second half of the season ends.

Julie was convinced that she would turn up during the big battle this week.  Everytime one of the bad guys got shot, and even when the governor got the sword, Julie would say, "It's Carol".  Too soon, just too soon.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 03, 2013, 11:38:51 AM
Yes, we will have to see Carol again so she can be exonerated from the two killings because it was Lizzie all along.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on December 05, 2013, 09:25:39 AM
just halfway through the season - i like to save them up and watch in a few days - pretty good so far.

pretty obvious that carol is covering for someone with the burning of the two bodies. and the feeding of the "nate" with rats. got to be that lizzie girl.

just finished the ep where the governor is standing outside the prison at the end. predictable. spoilers don't bother me that much as he's just back to pad a few eps anyway, so he's going to die.

just finished the flu eps. *yawn*. it's like these people can't foresee, at all. those fences should be fortified all the time. at least they addressed the food by farming.

why didn't they take over the governor's town?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on December 05, 2013, 02:58:02 PM
I don't see Carol covering for Lizzie for the killings, I think she did them. It makes perfect sense with the new attitude Carol has. She is all about doing whatever she thinks is needed to survive, and if that means killing 2 people so be it. I think Lizzie is definitely the rat feeder/dissector, but it is a huge jump from that to her having killed 2 people.

Overall, I really liked this season. The only thing that bothered me were the 2 big dropped plots (that I assume may come up in the second half) of the huge zombie herd and the radio transmission. The radio transmission was just dropped and you would think that would have been a HUGE thing. 
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 05, 2013, 03:28:53 PM
I don't see Carol covering for Lizzie for the killings, I think she did them. It makes perfect sense with the new attitude Carol has. She is all about doing whatever she thinks is needed to survive, and if that means killing 2 people so be it. I think Lizzie is definitely the rat feeder/dissector, but it is a huge jump from that to her having killed 2 people.

This.  We haven't seen the last of her though, she'll be back, if not in this season she'll be in the next.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 05, 2013, 05:10:40 PM
There really isn't a reasonable storyline to the Carol thing. 

She was, up until maybe the final 15 minutes still the least bad-ass member of that crew.  I mean, yeah she taught the kids to use knives instead of read and she killed a dude before he could go zombie.  Big whoop.  Half the other people in that group do that on a daily basis.

It seems rather unlikely that either Lizzie or Carol would have the strength to drag two dead bodies out to the courtyard and burn them.  Also, isn't Lizzie's personality/storyline basically just a rehash of Beth from the season before?

Anyway, the series really sucks at ambiguity.  You would think that in a post apocalypse world, the lines would get blurred but pretty much everyone on the show is very clearly good (albeit possibly with some weaknesses) or very clearly bad.  Which makes it difficult for me to see how Carol won't get exonerated in some way.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on December 09, 2013, 05:22:06 PM
SPOILERS  and random thoughts ahead.

sheesh. the final was a bloodbath. how many died?

i liked that the little girl took out the woman with the machine gun. hilarious. as though the gov's crew thought that storming the prison was all fun and games. possibly the worst use of a tank in a firefight. clearly no one knows basic flanking maneuvers. and once the battle started, they all forgot about rick, who was 50 feet from them behind the bus. sheesh.

you knew megan was getting it when the camera panned and she was in the background. again, why leave your child at least 30 secs away from you when zombies routinely pop out of nowhere? a bit ridiculous mom wandered all the way to the battle carrying the kid and she didn't turn. that's good, bad writing. no guards out on patrol for the inevitable swarm that's coming? leave the kids and moms undefended near the river? i'd have to think, if i was facing those circumstances, we'd be all about defense before offense.

i was thinking this reminds me of american history, bear with me here a moment. the frontier through ohio, kentucky,... the midwest. why not build forts for protection, set up trade routes with other forts, and beware of enemies (zombies in this case, but english,colonists, or native americans in that case - it was a bloody time). homesteads would be around the fort for protection and could retreat to the fort during times of emergency.  i suppose i think too much. i'd have to think that working together is a better option than fighting it out with every other group of humans.

as for zombie physiology, it's been over a year in the time line of the show, don't zombies also decompose? once the muscle falls off the bone, they can't move or bite. i'd think that most zombies would decompose into harmless piles of bones during the ~18 months of the show. random zombie pop ups seem plausible, but full on swarms should be "dying" HA! down.

predictable that the gov was a sacrifice to the story line. you knew he'd turn up again, and cause a shit storm and be killed. someone that full of hate and evil just can't last that long, although i did like they showed a "human" side of him when he met his new family. a bit gratuitous when he bashed in the grampa's head instead of using his knife.

didn't expect herschel to die. nice twist there. at this rate, any character can go at any time. i wonder if they'll keep rick around for the entire run?

carol will obviously return. they'll meet up on the road, save tyrese and all will be forgiven. she will cause another problem with her new survival mantra, perhaps with the new group/town they settle in.

why on earth do they all choose the most inefficient cars to drive? gas has got to be running out. that bugs me. i'd be stocking up on priuses or diesel cars. on second thought, the prius probably has too much technology to fix. stick to a diesel. where are the horses? i'd think they'd be the best option for getting around. michonne had one and then it just disappeared.

so, what's next?

i may complain a bit, but i really like the show and the writing. it's far better than most of the crap on tv.






Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on April 21, 2014, 11:23:42 PM

carol will obviously return. they'll meet up on the road, save tyrese and all will be forgiven. she will cause another problem with her new survival mantra, perhaps with the new group/town they settle in.


ha! i was right.

SPOILERS BELOW

just finished the recent half season on easter. good stuff.

should've seen the "of mice and men" homage with lizzie. that was a great episode and very gut wrenching. knew tyrese would forgive her eventually.

they're doing a great job of blurring the line between good and bad people. survivalists at all costs vs helping out others (although i think we'd do a better job of altruism in such a world).

glad they didn't have beth and darryl get a physical romance going. that would've been cheap. where did beth go? was this plot line in the books?

watching all 8 eps in one day had me notice one thing: recycling outdoor sets. i'd swear they used the same campsite at least three times. they do a pretty good job of keeping continuity other than that.

for some reason, i figured terminus was another "bad" outpost. since the series has had evil towns already, it made sense to recycle the idea with a new spin. i bet they get their supplies from wandering folks, and do a type of soylent green cannibilism with newcomers. just a hunch, but if a town goes that way, it's a great way to get supplies and food delivered to you, by your food.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on April 22, 2014, 08:46:05 AM
watching all 8 eps in one day had me notice one thing: recycling outdoor sets. i'd swear they used the same campsite at least three times. they do a pretty good job of keeping continuity other than that.

Have you never been in the woods?  It pretty much all looks the same.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on April 22, 2014, 12:35:40 PM
watching all 8 eps in one day had me notice one thing: recycling outdoor sets. i'd swear they used the same campsite at least three times. they do a pretty good job of keeping continuity other than that.

Have you never been in the woods?  It pretty much all looks the same.

the camp in question was a spot on high ground with barbed wire held up by green metal posts with cans on the wire on the perimeter of the site. i thought the cans were the same in different shots but had already deleted the previous episodes so i couldn't confirm. there's been use of a similar camp in previous seasons as well.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on October 16, 2014, 10:05:09 AM
Explosive start to Season 5! I'm glad to see they didn't drag the Terminus stuff out for 1/2 the season.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 16, 2014, 10:25:39 AM
Don't count on that.  Since they didn't go back and kill everybody, like Rick wanted, I'm sure the Terminus people will be the source of a lot of anguish for our guys throughout the season.

That was a crazy first episode.  They sure came out swinging with the trough of execution.  Pun intended.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: twentyshots on October 16, 2014, 07:21:00 PM
what's the deal with spoilers in this thread? i don't know how to incorporate that blocking out effect...
anyway, spoilers ahead.....





despite nearly crapping my heart out before the opening credits, i can't think of a more satisfying episode. escapes, reunions, epic walker deaths, a bit of well-justified tyreese rage......
like, the series could END on this note, really. with the major exception being the whereabouts of beth, this is the most stability the group has had in a long time. not sure if we will get this kind of payoff again.
i haven't read these comics so not sure how the show differs from the source material.....a lot, i hear.

-carol bringing her A game to terminus was especially cool. the explosion might be the most memorable scene in that whole episode. too bad she didn't grab michonne's sword as well, but the previews show michonne wielding it again, so that happens somehow.

-eugene is probably full of shit. he didn't sound very convincing when pressed.

-with dale and hershel gone, who is the moral compass? glenn? he seems to quietly be filling that role.

-here is a bit of hard core geekism that is an enjoyable (non)debate on whether andrea was a walker this episode.
http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/10/14/did-andrea-really-return-as-a-walker-in-the-walking-dead-premiere-2344803?lt_source=external,manual (http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/10/14/did-andrea-really-return-as-a-walker-in-the-walking-dead-premiere-2344803?lt_source=external,manual)
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on October 17, 2014, 07:58:20 AM
Carol is the best character on the show right now.  And it's not even close.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 17, 2014, 12:01:57 PM
They need to put Carol away for a bit now that the whole bad Carol/good Carol dilemma has been resolved.

That was one of those episodes of Walking Dead where ass-kicking Carol was so awesome you didn't have time to pause and think about how none of that made sense at all.  It was great.  I got no complaints at all.

At some point though, someone on that show is going to have to learn how to actually write.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 17, 2014, 01:02:05 PM
what's the deal with spoilers in this thread? i don't know how to incorporate that blocking out effect...
anyway, spoilers ahead.....


It's a thread about the show... it's nothing but spoilers, if you haven't watched don't read.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 17, 2014, 01:03:49 PM
That was one of those episodes of Walking Dead where ass-kicking Carol was so awesome you didn't have time to pause and think about how none of that made sense at all.  It was great. 

Like the totally implausible shooting of the bottle rocket?  Plus, it was a bottle rocket, wouldn't it have shot itself?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: twentyshots on October 18, 2014, 04:18:03 PM
the bottle rocket was amazingly accurate but it does become one of those things.....where do you decide to start splitting hairs when it comes to fiction. it is true that some situations are handled a little more gracefully than others though. to that point, i think one of the scenes that has bothered me the most was back when we found out that morgan's son was killed by none other than his own mother. that seemed especially gratuitous. like, why? why did we need that extra dose of improbable sadness?
i was ok with the weirdness that she just walked around out there and morgan couldn't bring himself to shoot her, but why does he have to learn some big lesson (like everyone has in the show) that you have to let go of your former reality to survive now?

that's the only reason i can find....that oh, because he spared her and she eventually took his son anyway, that he will live with that regret and do whatever it takes to survive.


anyway, here is some silly bullshit called carl poppa that really is better than the music it is lampooning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aM9Ch97U8
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 21, 2014, 04:21:35 PM
Like the totally implausible shooting of the bottle rocket?  Plus, it was a bottle rocket, wouldn't it have shot itself?

Upon rewatch of that scene I see now that I misunderstood the bottle rocket.  I only saw her light it the first time... I assumed that she then somehow fired the bottle rocket by shooting the gun, I dunno what I thought... but I see now that she just basically used the gun as the 'bottle'.  Still though, she has an amazing grasp of the physics involved with the trajectory of a bottle rocket stored away in her head to be able to do that in one try.  Plus, where the heck did she get a bottle rocket?

This week's slime pit scene was particularly far fetched (relatively).  We know that the walkers can eventually starve, at least that's what they've said, but it seems to me that there has to come a point when their state of decompose would have to be too great for them to be a threat.  Those walkers were little more than skeletons with some tissue attached, how exactly were they over powering healthy living humans?

Speaking of implausibility, I found it completely implausible that NO ONE in our guys' camp foresaw that the Terminus assholes would come after them.  Come on now.

Rick: We should kill'em all, they don't deserve to live.
Glenn: We don't need to.
Rick: Okay.

WHAT??

What kind of wine pairs with leg of Bob?  Château du D'oh?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 22, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
She got the bottle rocket from the dude they captured.

I'm not sure she could have punctured that tank from that distance.  If she could, I doubt she would be able to accurately fire a bottle rocket and hit the target.  If she hit the target, I don't think the dying embers of a bottle rocket would be enough to ignite the tank... at EXACTLY the nick of time where everyone before the first main character was about to bite it, but exactly after everyone who was a main character did.

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 22, 2014, 03:48:33 PM
On the nose.

Terminus guy's indignation seems bizarre.  I mean really?  You've been luring hapless strangers to your cannibal camp and eating them (a gym full of candles worth) and you're pissed that somebody kicked your ass?  I mean yeah, they're nuts, but really?  I guess it wouldn't be TV-like for them to say "we had a good run". 

So are the Termin-ites going to go zombie from eating Bob... he got bit, right?   Talk about obvious writing.  I barely knew he was a character and then he's in my face every couple of minutes for an entire episode?  Dude might as well have been wearing a red Star Trek uniform.  Not to mention the fact that, hey, hey there's a new black guy!  That means a black guy's gotta die. You'd think they'd break that trend just so we would stop making fun of it.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on December 04, 2014, 01:26:11 PM
I knew someone had to go in the last episode. In our family poll before the show my wife guessed Beth, I guessed Abraham, my kids also had incorrect guesses. She of course was correct.
As it has been over the last few 1/2 seasons this one started out strong, then meandered until the final episode and brought everyone back together. Now we wait for February.......
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on December 04, 2014, 04:27:34 PM
My money was on Sasha and I really wish it had been her. I really liked Beth. They had done a great job building her character. I really hated to see her go.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 05, 2014, 08:11:31 AM
Sasha and Tyrese are just going to be annoying now.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on December 06, 2014, 01:06:28 PM
I was okay with Beth dying for multiple reasons:

1)  For some reason, every single woman on the Walking Dead is super hot to me.  I don't know why.  I mean some of them actually ARE kinda hot.  But even like Carol and Dawn and others I find oddly sexy.  I don't like Christine Woods in her usual Courtney Cox-looking mode when she's supposed to be somewhat attractive, but put her in a cop uniform looking like she hasn't slept for days and something happens.  I also hate Christian Serratos real-life glammy hot model pinup looks in real life but find her sexy on the show.  It works for everyone.  Except Beth/Emily McKinney.  Who just annoys me even though they made her character better.  And who also annoys me outside the show.

2)  I like it when people on that show die sort of randomly.  I just think that is what happens in that situation.  You lose your head for a second like Beth did, or you just get unlucky and it's curtains.  It's somewhat unsatisfying in a character development, story arc sort of way... but it needs to happen now and again.

3)  Beth had kind of gone as far as she could go.  She was kind of the somewhat annoying innocent character.  Then she became stronger and experienced stuff.  By the end though, she was becoming much like everyone else, struggling with moral ambiguity and all the nastiness.  Which was realistic and good for the plot but from there on she'd just be another Tyrese or Bob or whoever.  There are already too many similar-ish people they don't know what to do with.  And it's nice that she went out stupidly but at the same time sort of self-sacrificingly.  She was going to have to turn into a different person, and maybe she deep down didn't want to be that person.  At the same time, she had a strength and viciousness to her.  So that was all sort of new Beth, and old virginal Beth and kid Beth rolled up all in one moment and maybe those three just can't coexist and something stupid happens.

4)  It was still sad and emotional for me but because DAWN died.  I really kind of liked her character.  You could see how she was good, but that good had been twisted and how really she wasn't all that far away from Rick.  She was kind of in between Rick and Shane before the writers messed him up bad right before she died.  The slo-mo of her shocked face shaking her head all "I didn't mean it" was kinda moving to me.  Daryl just gunned her down in cold...well, maybe hot blood.  That to me was more nasty than anything else in that ep.  Beth lost her head and was trying sort of to save Noah.  Dawn shot Beth accidentally upon being stabbed.  Daryl shot Dawn on purpose.

Overall, I'd say that was a pretty strong season 4 so far.  The new head honcho guy is way better at character development and they have the ratio of character/human stuff to crazy zombie-kicking-ass about right now.  There are still too many characters they don't know what to do with.  Sasha and Tyrese still give off that T-Dog 2.0 vibe.  And while characters Maggie and Abraham are good overall they kind of get put away for too long.  Like Maggie kinda forgot all about Beth until this episode.  Abraham had that breakdown but then just sorta disappeared like oh its all over now.  It's a hard juggling act, I get it.  But then maybe they need to downsize the cast.  And they are still sort of stuck in the "group meets new group/new group sucks/someone dies" cycle.  Along with the "group gets split up/somehow reconvenes with new character" thing.  They're doing it BETTER now but they still need to break out of it.

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: twentyshots on December 07, 2014, 10:07:20 AM
interesting take on dawn.....you may have liked her more than anyone i've talked to, but i was having this discussion with my coworker, was it an accident she killed beth?
i haven't watched again for nuance but my first thought was that if it was an accident she wouldn't have shot her in the head...more likely the gut or something during the brief struggle. sure, it was close quarters but my sense was that she was prepared to kill beth all along, despite trying to mold her in her own weird way or get her on board with whatever philosophy she was touting. it's almost as if dawn wanted to prove to beth that her thinking was wrong....by whatever means. and that she was better off being under dawn's influence, dead or alive.

there's no doubt everyone is shifting into moral ambiguity, or maybe "justified morality" is a better word...so from that standpoint maybe dawn isn't much different from rick or shane, it's my sense though that the writers are really exploring the shades of grey now. leadership seems to be ultimately be earned by cruelty or willingness to do the horrible thing. gareth being the most horrible, and the governor wrapping his horribleness up like a charismatic politician. dawn ruled with a stick too....i mean, slapping the shit out of people while you are trying to convince them you are saving them? and just letting systemic rape go on like that? the big difference now seems to be whether you are trying to mind your own business (like rick's group) or actively drawing in victims, like woodbury, terminus or the hospital. that still the demarcation between a (albeit frail) dictatorship and something slightly less.

yeah. tough episode. beth had just been kind of innocuous to me all along but building this story arc kind of purposely got everyone on her side because she was the victim. i just love the tension of the that final scene though..putting the hostage swap in a claustrophobic hallway like that...a shoot out would have taken down several characters and they really upped the stakes with that location and even how they filmed it with dutch angles. the herschel death scene is still more classically barbaric in a way....that will be an enduring image, on his knees. one thing though is that the writer's may want to start considering the head fake with these finales.....they do it a little with carol, like, who is going to die, but yeah i bet the next big death might be totally out of left field without a big build up.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on December 07, 2014, 10:58:02 AM
I don't think her shooting Beth was so much an accident as it was an unexpected reaction. She was really starting to like Beth, and when Beth stabbed her, she just reacted and shot her. The look on her face pretty much showed she regretted it as soon as it happened, but at that point, it was too late.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on December 09, 2014, 07:24:26 AM
I agree with ZK that it was a strong season overall, but I disagree about liking Dawn.  I thought everyone in the hospital was either really poorly acted or written, or some combination of both.  Most of the "evil" cops were just short of twirling their mustache.  And I really never got much out of Dawn except "can we please move on from this terrible actress/character already".

But I really enjoyed it overall.  Although, a lot of people that are unconscious for several hours seemed to be just fine after waking up.  That's not really how that works.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 09, 2014, 11:25:04 AM
What?  You think it's not plausible to be hit by a car, be placed in a medically induced coma, and then wake up THE NEXT DAY and be perfectly alert right away?  This is a person that can shoot a hole in a propane tank at distance in one shot and then perfectly aim/time a bottle rocket to set off an explosion after all.  I'm guessing her midi-chlorians must be off the chart.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: notoriouspbake on December 11, 2014, 10:09:46 AM
But I really enjoyed it overall.  Although, a lot of people that are unconscious for several hours seemed to be just fine after waking up.  That's not really how that works.

i amuse myself with similar thoughts of realism in a show about zombies - "really, you're hung up on the coma-waker being factually incorrect, not the fact that the dead come back to life?" and yes, i do say that (or something similar) every episode. that being said, can they stop using the worst cars for mpg? and who keeps mowing the lawns?

i liked the season - binge watched it last weekend - but the hosiptal arc was a throw away, for all the reasons already cited in this thread. and the terminus group - who kidnaps a guy, eats his leg, and then returns him? and how on earth did an injured guy survive all of that? i figured someone was going to die by the end, didn't see beth eating it.

since carol/darryl are now the same character, different gender - i figure one of them is going to die next half season.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on December 11, 2014, 10:50:56 AM
But I really enjoyed it overall.  Although, a lot of people that are unconscious for several hours seemed to be just fine after waking up.  That's not really how that works.

i amuse myself with similar thoughts of realism in a show about zombies - "really, you're hung up on the coma-waker being factually incorrect, not the fact that the dead come back to life?" and yes, i do say that (or something similar) every episode. that being said, can they stop using the worst cars for mpg? and who keeps mowing the lawns?

Yes.  Fun things to amuse myself, but nothing that really takes away from my enjoyment of the show overall.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 11, 2014, 01:56:08 PM
I notice all of that of course, and make fun of it from time to time, but the biggest one for me is the inconsistency of the zombie behavior.  One minute they are jumping fences. and the next you can basically subdue them by placing your palm on their forehead and setting your feet. 

And of course knives slide right through skulls.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on February 10, 2015, 09:36:03 AM
Tyrese is gone - who's next?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on February 14, 2015, 12:31:51 AM
Brutally bad episode, man.  I guess the critics liked it, not sure why.  Seemed like they tried to find a reason to go all arty, even if the plot made no sense, and the result wasn't really all that arty.

I know I said I liked it when people died kind of randomly.  I meant, every once in a while.  Not like two straight episodes.  Also, there's a difference between dying randomly and dying STUPIDLY.  Tyrese died stupidly.

I'm not too perturbed by it in the end, considering I cared nothing about Tyrese (nor do I think anyone else did).  And there were no real story arcs being resolved or launched here so none of this crapiness needs to carry over into other epsiodes.  Also, Better Call Saul was better than I expected so the evening ended on an up note.

As long as this is just the typical comic book in-between-story-arcs one-off crap epsiode.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on February 14, 2015, 07:55:08 AM
I felt the exact opposite.  I hate that they killed Tyrese, as he was a really interesting character. He was something different from everyone else in the group and really was becoming the "moral compass" of the group (which in this show means you are going to die it seems). But I loved the episode itself even if I hated who they killed. It gave a real insight to his thinking and what his character had become that we don't get much on the show. It was something different that to me really worked. Sure, I wouldn't want stuff like that every week, but that is why episodes like that work so well, because they are so different than what you normally get.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on November 25, 2015, 09:21:24 AM
(1/2) season final episode this Sunday. It's been a good season so far - I had it called perfectly on Glen being alive and scooting under the dumpster..........
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on November 25, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
I called it too but I still hate it. It seemed like such a gimmick to show him "dying" and then spend weeks not addressing it. I was okay with the Morgan story the next week to hold off, but then taking him out of the credits and then doing more story without addressing it just seemed like a desperate attempt to get people talking (which isn't needed because people already talk about the show).
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 25, 2015, 11:32:32 AM
I agree with Dirk, almost completely, but I think it's stupid on another level.  Comic Book based spoilers below... you've been warned.

Glen is going to die soon anyway, for realsies.  It's a major plot point in the comics.  So what was the point of this little stunt?  Did they kill him just to bring him back in dramatic fashion, and then kill him again just when people are thinking he's safe? How friggin' contrived.

Another, unrelated, rant based on the comics.

So, I picked up one of the compiled books of the comics recently at a store and was thumbing through.  On the last page was a walker, pointing a gun at someone, and speaking to them.  Say what?  If that is seriously where all of this is going I might have to be done soon.  That is beyond stupid.  Maybe it was a dream or something, or a regular person disguised as a zombie.  Please tell me it was.  If it wasn't, wtf?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: dirk on November 25, 2015, 03:11:34 PM
I agree with Dirk, almost completely, but I think it's stupid on another level.  Comic Book based spoilers below... you've been warned.

Glen is going to die soon anyway, for realsies.  It's a major plot point in the comics.  So what was the point of this little stunt?  Did they kill him just to bring him back in dramatic fashion, and then kill him again just when people are thinking he's safe? How friggin' contrived.

Another, unrelated, rant based on the comics.
While this is true, than can easily sub someone else in for this. Some people swear it will be Daryl, some think it could be Carol (who is long dead in the comics). The show has deviated in enough ways from the comics that this can very easily be changed.
Quote
So, I picked up one of the compiled books of the comics recently at a store and was thumbing through.  On the last page was a walker, pointing a gun at someone, and speaking to them.  Say what?  If that is seriously where all of this is going I might have to be done soon.  That is beyond stupid.  Maybe it was a dream or something, or a regular person disguised as a zombie.  Please tell me it was.  If it wasn't, wtf?
You need to read the next one. This is most definitely not where they are going in either the comics or (I assume) the show.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on November 30, 2015, 10:32:35 AM
Solid ending to the 1/2 season. Hopefully Morgan will finally realize that sometimes you've got to kill some folks or you are gong to get others killed. I'm hoping Sam gets it soon, he's pretty much of a pansy...........
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 30, 2015, 10:49:28 AM
I hope the doctor chick doesn't end up dead, that would suck.  Morgan's no kill thing is stupid, I hope he lives to figure it out, and does in fact figure it out. 

I'm drawing a blank on the name Sam... who is that?  There are too many characters these days.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 30, 2015, 10:50:49 AM
I haven't last night's episode yet, but will probably watch it tonight.

But I think everyone felt like Glenn just scooted under the dumpster.

I wasn't that disturbed by it.  My expectations for Walking Dead having any sort of compelling storytelling have disappeared.  It's just an action-thriller kind of thing, and so people have to almost die and get out of it for it to be thrilling.  The only thing was, it was too obvious how Glenn was going to get out of it.  They still could have gotten a lot of mileage out of making people guess HOW Glenn gets out.  Instead the "mystery" was whether Glenn was dead and it fooled no one.

And as far as action goes, this season has delivered on the tension and excitement so I felt like it was solid.  It's just a show where I expect every episode to get like a B, and as long as they do, it's pretty easy to watch. 

But you know it's bad when I don't even realize the significance of people dying until I read episode recaps.  Like I had no idea that that one zombie that cutieblond killed had actually committed suicide, and that she was actually the wife of the other dude who was trying to write a note to her.  Missed just about that whole thing.  Also, it's bad that I refer to Alexandrians as "cutieblond" and "mightbeherson?"

I'm more perturbed by the fact that Tara is obviously pregnant and we pretend she isn't, while Maggie is obviously not pregnant and we pretend she is.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 30, 2015, 10:52:32 AM
You need to read the next one. This is most definitely not where they are going in either the comics or (I assume) the show.

I have no intention of actually reading any of them, I just happened to see what I saw on a lark.  Glad to know it wasn't what I thought.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 30, 2015, 06:28:28 PM
I wish they wouldn't pretend like they are in Alexandria.  That don't make no kinda sense.

First off, Alexandria is only like, 5-10 miles from DC.  You could walk there and back in a day if you really wanted to. 

Second, Alexandria is right off the Potomac.  And the Walkers don't like, go in the water or know how to fish.  So it seems like there would be a nice supply of fresh food.  Plus, if you really want to go to DC, just get on a boat and go up the river. 

Third, there are no woods in that area.  Not even like off-the-highway 1 mile woods.  It's all developed.

So the idea of there being these semi-isolated communities not in contact with each other and/or with crazy killing societal structures doesn't work.  Everyone would know where the other people are.  And they wouldn't war with each other or go batshit insane.  Not because I believe people are good.  Just because it's easier.  There's plenty of people around, and more than enough resources for everyone if you gather together instead of wandering around in tiny groups fighting for survival. 
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on December 01, 2015, 08:43:37 AM
I'm drawing a blank on the name Sam... who is that?  There are too many characters these days.
Sam is the kid that has been staying upstairs in his room talking about the "monsters". He's the one that was saying "mom, mom, mom, mom" as they waded through the walkers at the end of the episode.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on December 01, 2015, 09:05:45 AM
Oh, that's why I didn't connect the name, context.  Yeah, that little kid... he's a pussy all right.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 07, 2016, 12:15:49 AM
Alicia Witt! 
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on March 16, 2016, 06:02:53 PM
Alicia Witt :(
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on March 17, 2016, 09:36:22 AM
I know her name, but I don't know why.  What else has she done?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: mik on November 09, 2016, 08:37:59 AM
A Town Called Malice used for the opening scenes?!!? I love it!!
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 09, 2016, 11:47:43 AM
I watched the first half hour or so of the first episode this season and it was so stupid I turned it off in disgust.

Someone who also hated that episode and almost gave up told me that actually it gets a lot better after that.  Is this true?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Kwyjibo on November 10, 2016, 10:26:49 AM
I watched the first half hour or so of the first episode this season and it was so stupid I turned it off in disgust.

Someone who also hated that episode and almost gave up told me that actually it gets a lot better after that.  Is this true?

We hated it.  YMMV
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Zafer Kaya on November 10, 2016, 03:25:55 PM
But if I make it through, are the subsequent episodes worth watching or am I cool to just give up?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Chris on November 10, 2016, 09:28:56 PM
But if I make it through, are the subsequent episodes worth watching or am I cool to just give up?

If we're just talking about this current season, ep 2 is goofy and interesting enough to make it through. Ep 3 I felt was way too slow and you REALLY have to like a song called Easy Street (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoQ4GidQP-k) and torture scenes ad infinitum to get anything out of it.

Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on October 21, 2017, 09:49:59 PM
Soooooooooooooo
This starts back up this weekend.
Anybody still watching or did you give up?
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on October 23, 2017, 12:01:29 AM
So Rick is Jack
Daryl is OBVIOUSLY Sawyer
Michone is Kate I guess?
Carol and Morgan are both a combo of Locke and Mr. Ecko
Jesus is Desmond

Or do you think the flash forwards/sideways whatever were just a one-off?


Also, I know everybody looooooves Neegan and maybe even I was swayed at first, but I cannot stand him.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Butter on October 23, 2017, 07:24:01 AM
Soooooooooooooo
This starts back up this weekend.
Anybody still watching or did you give up?

Gave up the episode where Morgan (?) found Rick in Alexandria.  That was a season finale.  I didn't see a need to continue after that.  I like me some old sad bastard movies, but even I have a limit.
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on November 06, 2017, 11:17:14 PM
Realized tonight that watching on 1.5 speed made the show much more brearable.
Thanks TiVo!
Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Juliana on February 12, 2018, 10:19:04 PM
Realized tonight that watching on 1.5 speed made the show much more brearable.
Thanks TiVo!

That said, caught the “preview” the other night and I really think that I’m done.