***OFFICIAL 'The Walking Dead' TV Series Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

Right. And Tyrese being to much of a wuss to immediately kill gum-chewer is totally consistent with his character, even if it looks idiotic to the viewers, who are aware of who he is with and what they are.

 

[Harry Manback]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

True, but unfortunately Andrea may have been a writing issue. I think in the comics she plays a bigger part according to previous comments on here, so maybe they wanted her to stay around longer.

Personally, I think they could have saved her character and some stupid stuff with the Governor (I only liked his loner episodes/meeting the family, didn't like takeover of the group and assault part deux) if they let her kill him in that factory. They set it up so damn well, only to have his miraculous escape and capture of her before Rick spotted her.

See tdoss, we do criticize the show. It isn't all roses and puppies. I just don't care to nitpick and respond to places where I don't think there were issues/plot holes.

Andrea is 100% different in the comics. They effed her up badly in the show.

I think that's why I wish she were around and not Carol, I prefer the comics take on that particular storyline.

C'est la vie.

 

[El Floppo]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

Right. And Tyrese being to much of a wuss to immediately kill gum-chewer is totally consistent with his character, even if it looks idiotic to the viewers, who are aware of who he is with and what they are.

yeah- I actually like that Tyrese wasn't going to kill that guy in cold blood.

 

[mlball77]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

Right. And Tyrese being to much of a wuss to immediately kill gum-chewer is totally consistent with his character, even if it looks idiotic to the viewers, who are aware of who he is with and what they are.

yeah- I actually like that Tyrese wasn't going to kill that guy in cold blood.

The group needs a few folks that aren't cold blooded (Glenn, Tyrese, etc.). To me, it seems that this is, in large part, what separates them from some of the other groups that are generally seen as "bad." But admittedly, the group needs some people that will do the dirty work as well, given the condition of the world. A well-balanced team.

 

[tdoss]

5: fans of the show who find the silly things silly- and are able to talk about them without diminishing their own ability in liking the show.

you guys (WD apologists) don't have to defend every single thing- there's a lot of bizarre and poorly written stuff in this show... learn to embrace and enjoy it. there is a middle ground here.

It's weird how defensive and personal the apologists seem to get over this show.It's like someone is saying their baby is ugly or something.

Nothing is personal, this is a freaking message board, it just gets old in the thread to have so many complaints cluttering it up. Especially when half of them are complaints that aren't even valid (like the propane tank ones and worrying about them deciding to make sure they escape and not risk fighting zombies for more guns). I don't care if you like the show or not, I'd (me personally) rather discuss what happened and potential for what happens next. As bigbottom said above, it was a great episode with a lot that happened and IMHO, it gets annoying to keep reading complaints, especially ones that aren't really correct. That said, we can reply to your complaints and point out all the holes just like you can complain about whatever you want.

Nothing valid about your defense of leaving those weapons on the ground.And I didn't bring up the propane tank, bottle rocket shot...not really my argument.

No one has told me why Tyrese didn't blast that fool with the baby...or why they're so concerned about counting every round expended but waste countless rounds trying to rat maze them to the freight cars. It was ridiculous drama for the sake of drama...no one would've done that...they'd have disarmed them and simply walked them into the freight car.

And simple discussion "fixed" that blood trough scene for the better by simply swapping Bob for Glenn. No one in their right mind thought Glenn was ever in ANY danger.

Man, whatever I say, you will disagree with regardless, but here I go again.1. It was very valid. First of all, you said they left weapons at their feet. That is wrong. They were a good 20-30 yards away. Second, you stated that they were wasting countless rounds, which tells me that there were a lot of zombies coming that way. Third, you act like this is a video game where you just need to walk near weapons and have them magically picked up. They were all being eaten, so there were already zombies all over them. My point is that they made the choice to go for the escape and not risk picking up weapons that may not have been easy with all of the zombies around. Plus, you said they were wasting a lot of rounds, so maybe, there wasn't much ammo left anyway. Also, as I stated in my response (which you never countered) before, Rick was able to shoot Garreth due to surprise on the way to saving his comrades. If they stopped, fought walkers with pipes/knives, Garreth and his men up top could have easily been ready and thus a firefight or people in the group dead or no escape would have been much more likely than what occurred (surprising Garreth, saving the rest of the group and a narrow escape). So, in summary, I disagree that picking up those weapons, for which they may not have had more ammo, was not the right move and they made the right move to escape and get back to their existing cache of weapons for which they had more ammo.

2. Pretty obvious that Tyrese is a very emotional guy. He was caring for two girls that both died and he wasn't ready to get back to being like Carol and being an emotionless killer. That reason may not be good enough for you, but that sure seemed to be what they implied and whether you like it or not, that is his character. He was hoping he wouldn't have to kill that guy and he screwed up.

3. I think you are assuming that Garreth running a tight ship means that they can't fire weapons. He killed his friend because he wasn't doinng a good job bringing Rick in, he's been altered a bit by the trauma they went through and I think the ammo counting has more to do with his making sure he has full 100% control of his folks than saving ammo. It is also weird that you think they wouldn't use the ammo when they are being attacked by a herd of zombies, which clearly they had never encountered. Did you see the people running scared at the fence when Carol was shooting the tank? Seemed to me that they weren't ready for the zombies, just other humans.

4. Who cares about switching Bob. Of course we knew Glenn lived, I saw it in the previews. We all new the guy would stop swinging, so why does it matter that they didn't make us worried about Bob? Maybe Bob was in the previews as well, I don't recall. I knew it would stop at Glenn. It is kind of like the bottle rocket. We knew she was going to blow up the tank, it was happening no matter what. Maybe I would have liked her to point it giving it more realism, but it was going to happen, no need to worry about it. I probably would have been more worried about Bob as well, but it doesn't bother me.

There are my thoughts, have at them.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about the wasting of ammo in fighting the zombie horde...that's not what I'm referring to...

I'm talking about when they rounded Rick's crew up at the end of last season. They fire off round after round to herd them to the freight cars. That's just useless tv drama. No one would do that...especially if they were so damned concerned about every single round someone has used. They'd simply disarm them and walk them to the freight car at gunpoint.

 

[Parrothead]

5: fans of the show who find the silly things silly- and are able to talk about them without diminishing their own ability in liking the show.

you guys (WD apologists) don't have to defend every single thing- there's a lot of bizarre and poorly written stuff in this show... learn to embrace and enjoy it. there is a middle ground here.

It's weird how defensive and personal the apologists seem to get over this show.It's like someone is saying their baby is ugly or something.

Nothing is personal, this is a freaking message board, it just gets old in the thread to have so many complaints cluttering it up. Especially when half of them are complaints that aren't even valid (like the propane tank ones and worrying about them deciding to make sure they escape and not risk fighting zombies for more guns). I don't care if you like the show or not, I'd (me personally) rather discuss what happened and potential for what happens next. As bigbottom said above, it was a great episode with a lot that happened and IMHO, it gets annoying to keep reading complaints, especially ones that aren't really correct. That said, we can reply to your complaints and point out all the holes just like you can complain about whatever you want.

Nothing valid about your defense of leaving those weapons on the ground.And I didn't bring up the propane tank, bottle rocket shot...not really my argument.

No one has told me why Tyrese didn't blast that fool with the baby...or why they're so concerned about counting every round expended but waste countless rounds trying to rat maze them to the freight cars. It was ridiculous drama for the sake of drama...no one would've done that...they'd have disarmed them and simply walked them into the freight car.

And simple discussion "fixed" that blood trough scene for the better by simply swapping Bob for Glenn. No one in their right mind thought Glenn was ever in ANY danger.

Man, whatever I say, you will disagree with regardless, but here I go again.1. It was very valid. First of all, you said they left weapons at their feet. That is wrong. They were a good 20-30 yards away. Second, you stated that they were wasting countless rounds, which tells me that there were a lot of zombies coming that way. Third, you act like this is a video game where you just need to walk near weapons and have them magically picked up. They were all being eaten, so there were already zombies all over them. My point is that they made the choice to go for the escape and not risk picking up weapons that may not have been easy with all of the zombies around. Plus, you said they were wasting a lot of rounds, so maybe, there wasn't much ammo left anyway. Also, as I stated in my response (which you never countered) before, Rick was able to shoot Garreth due to surprise on the way to saving his comrades. If they stopped, fought walkers with pipes/knives, Garreth and his men up top could have easily been ready and thus a firefight or people in the group dead or no escape would have been much more likely than what occurred (surprising Garreth, saving the rest of the group and a narrow escape). So, in summary, I disagree that picking up those weapons, for which they may not have had more ammo, was not the right move and they made the right move to escape and get back to their existing cache of weapons for which they had more ammo.

2. Pretty obvious that Tyrese is a very emotional guy. He was caring for two girls that both died and he wasn't ready to get back to being like Carol and being an emotionless killer. That reason may not be good enough for you, but that sure seemed to be what they implied and whether you like it or not, that is his character. He was hoping he wouldn't have to kill that guy and he screwed up.

3. I think you are assuming that Garreth running a tight ship means that they can't fire weapons. He killed his friend because he wasn't doinng a good job bringing Rick in, he's been altered a bit by the trauma they went through and I think the ammo counting has more to do with his making sure he has full 100% control of his folks than saving ammo. It is also weird that you think they wouldn't use the ammo when they are being attacked by a herd of zombies, which clearly they had never encountered. Did you see the people running scared at the fence when Carol was shooting the tank? Seemed to me that they weren't ready for the zombies, just other humans.

4. Who cares about switching Bob. Of course we knew Glenn lived, I saw it in the previews. We all new the guy would stop swinging, so why does it matter that they didn't make us worried about Bob? Maybe Bob was in the previews as well, I don't recall. I knew it would stop at Glenn. It is kind of like the bottle rocket. We knew she was going to blow up the tank, it was happening no matter what. Maybe I would have liked her to point it giving it more realism, but it was going to happen, no need to worry about it. I probably would have been more worried about Bob as well, but it doesn't bother me.

There are my thoughts, have at them.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about the wasting of ammo in fighting the zombie horde...that's not what I'm referring to...

I'm talking about when they rounded Rick's crew up at the end of last season. They fire off round after round to herd them to the freight cars. That's just useless tv drama. No one would do that...especially if they were so damned concerned about every single round someone has used. They'd simply disarm them and walk them to the freight car at gunpoint.

Maybe they did that with people slated for car 'D'.. maybe car 'A' was for the badasses who fight back?

 

[tdoss]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

Right. And Tyrese being to much of a wuss to immediately kill gum-chewer is totally consistent with his character, even if it looks idiotic to the viewers, who are aware of who he is with and what they are.

yeah- I actually like that Tyrese wasn't going to kill that guy in cold blood.

I'm fine with that...somewhat. I've got a baby to protect so I'd snap his neck...but that's me. And after I've already twisted his ankles back and interrogated him.

But I had issue with the baby choking scene. Just shoot him...or have him pick up the baby so I can be OK with him not shooting.

 

[cstu]

Interesting stuff:

The people of Terminus are totally the cannibals from the comics, right?

Robert Kirkman: Assume nothing. I will say for the record that we're not revealing that these are the cannibals or outright denying that. You should plan for a surprise when we come back for Season 5.

Scott Gimple: I don't think there's anything in Episode 16 that showed them as definitely cannibals. One could suspect, but there are no eaten parts there.

Decent pic of the pile of human bones

What was the surprise?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

Right. And Tyrese being to much of a wuss to immediately kill gum-chewer is totally consistent with his character, even if it looks idiotic to the viewers, who are aware of who he is with and what they are.

yeah- I actually like that Tyrese wasn't going to kill that guy in cold blood.

I'm fine with that...somewhat. I've got a baby to protect so I'd snap his neck...but that's me. And after I've already twisted his ankles back and interrogated him.

But I had issue with the baby choking scene. Just shoot him...or have him pick up the baby so I can be OK with him not shooting.

Similarly, Carol went up close to kick the knife away rather than just shooting that broad again.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

guis, guise; its a show abuot zombis. it dont has to be realistic. just relaxx

 

[tdoss]

Interesting stuff:

The people of Terminus are totally the cannibals from the comics, right?

Robert Kirkman: Assume nothing. I will say for the record that we're not revealing that these are the cannibals or outright denying that. You should plan for a surprise when we come back for Season 5.

Scott Gimple: I don't think there's anything in Episode 16 that showed them as definitely cannibals. One could suspect, but there are no eaten parts there.

Decent pic of the pile of human bones

What was the surprise?

Couldn't say...pretty much what we said it was...

 

[packersfan]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

 

[cstu]

I'm fine with that...somewhat. I've got a baby to protect so I'd snap his neck...but that's me. And after I've already twisted his ankles back and interrogated him.

But I had issue with the baby choking scene. Just shoot him...or have him pick up the baby so I can be OK with him not shooting.

The baby scene was done that way since there was no actual baby in the basket. The shots of him with his hands on the baby were filmed separately. Most parents don't want their baby filmed a scene where the baby is being threatened.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

Porn.

Internet.

Welcomes.

 

[packersfan]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

Porn.

Internet.

Welcomes.

I thought people might be interested in knowing there are some real nice pics of Lauren in a new magazine. If not, go back to your usual porn.

 

[cstu]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

In writing there's a thing called internal consistency, meaning a character should act in a way that is consistent with the character's psychology unless there is an external force changing their behavior. It's very easy for writer's on a show like this to make characters do anything they want and blame it on them living in a zombie world.

 

[badmojo1006]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

I think my favorite pic is her at the chalkboard

 

[packersfan]

I think you could say all of the main characters on this show have dealt with an external force of some kind that has influenced their behaviors at various points in the story. That's another of the things I really like about this show. There isn't a single main character who is the same now as when they were first introduced. All of them have grown and evolved and changed in (in my opinion) very interesting ways.

 

[packersfan]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

I think my favorite pic is her at the chalkboard

She really is crazy hot. No doubt about it.

 

[Thunderlips]

This show is freekin awesome. I watch it cause I like it. SHows I dont like, I dont watch.

We're talking about implausible scenarios when the show is based on one of the most implausible scenarious imaginable. Yeah baby!!!!!

Just an fyi, a few years into a zombie apocalypse, I would tend to thing logic and reason would have waived bye bye to people a long time ago

I disagree.

IMO, this (and any) show works at it's best because despite the accepted conceit of the zombie-apocolypse, the characters (and rules of physics) behave in ways that make sense in this new horrible world. When people do stupid things that make no sense- regardless of apologists being able to frame a ridiculous rationale for the behavior- the show fails. The nonsensical things happens a lot and are worthy of continued derision, even in the context of a great episode.

that said- there are the trolls who only point out the negative things and so appear to be watching, or at least posting, only to be a troll. I'll never get the appeal of living in that type of negativity, but I don't have to.

To Sherwood Schwartz et al.

Notes: Robert Reed

There is a fundamental difference in theatre between:

1.Melodrama

2.Drama

3.Comedy

4.Farce

5.Slapstick

6.Satire &

7.Fantasy

They require not only a difference in terms of construction, but also in presentation and, most explicitly, styles of acting. Their dramatis peronsae are noninterchangable. For example, Hamlet, archtypical of the dramatic character, could not be written into Midsummer Night's Dream and still retain his identity. Ophelia could not play a scene with Titania; Richard II could not be found in Twelfth Night. In other words, a character indigenous to one style of the theatre cannot function in any of the other styles. Obviously, the precept holds true for any period. Andy Hardy could not suddenly appear in Citizen Kane, or even closer in style, Andy Hardy could not appear in a Laurel and Hardy film. Andy Hardy is a "comedic" character, Laurel and Hardy are of the purest slapstick. The boundaries are rigid, and within the confines of one theatric piece the style must remain constant.

Why? It is a long since proven theorem in the theatre that an audience will adjust its suspension of belief to the degree that the opening of the presentation leads them. When a curtain rises on two French maids in a farce set discussing the peccadilloes of their master, the audience is now set for an evening of theatre in a certain style, and are prepared to accept having excluded certain levels of reality. And that is the price difference in the styles of theatre, both for the actor and the writer--the degree of reality inherent. Pure drama and comedy are closest to core realism, slapstick and fantasy the farthest removed. It is also part of that theorem that one cannot change styles midstream. How often do we read damning critical reviews of, let's say, a drama in which a character has "hammed" or in stricter terms become melodramatic. How often have we criticized the "mumble and scratch" approach to Shakespearean melodrama, because ultra-realism is out of place when another style is required. And yet, any of these attacks could draw plaudits when played in the appropriate genre.

Television falls under exactly the same principle. What the networks in their oversimplification call "sitcoms" actually are quite diverse styles except where bastardized by careless writing or performing. For instance:

M*A*S*H....comedy

The Paul Lynde Show....Farce

Beverly Hillbillies.....Slapstick

Batman......Satire

I dream of Jeannie....Fantasy

And the same rules hold just as true. Imagine a scene in M*A*S*H in which Arthur Hill appears playing his "Owen Marshall" role, or Archie Bunker suddenly landing on "Gilligan's Island" , or Dom Deluise and his mother in " Mannix." Of course, any of these actors could play in any of the series in different roles predicated on the appropriate style of acting. But the maxim implicit in all this is: when the first-act curtain rises on a comedy, the second act curtain has to rise on the same thing, with the actors playing in commensurate styles.

If it isn't already clear, not only does the audience accept a certain level of belief, but so must the actor in order to function at all. His consciousness opens like an iris to allow the proper amount of reality into his acting subtext. And all of the actors in the same piece must deal with the same level, or the audience will not know to whom to adjust and will often empathize with the character with the most credibility--total reality eliciting the most complete empathic response. Example: We are in the operating room in M*A*S*H, with the usual pan shot across a myriad of operating tables filled with surgical teams at work. The leads are sweating away at their work, and at the same time engaged in banter with the head nurse. Suddenly, the doors fly open and Batman appears! Now the scene cannot go on. The M*A*S*H characters, dealing with their own level of quasi-comic reality, having subtext pertinent to the scene, cannot accept as real in their own terms this other character. Oh yes, they could make fast adjustments. He is a deranged member of some battle-fatigued platoon and somehow came upon a Batman suit. But the Batman character cannot then play his intended character true to his own series. Even if it were possible to mix both styles, it would have to be dealt with by the characters, not just abruptly accepted. Meanwhile, the audience will stick with that level of reality to which they have been introduced, and unless the added character quickly adjusts, will reject him.

The most generic problem to date in "The Brady Bunch" has been this almost constant scripted inner transposition of styles.

1. A pie-throwing sequence tacked unceremoniously onto the end of a weak script.

2. The youngest daughter in a matter of a few unexplained hours managing to look and dance like Shirley Temple.

3. The middle boy happening to run into a look-alike in the halls of his school, with so exact a resemblance he fools his parents [Rowe: what that's never happened to you?].

And the list goes on.

Once again, we are infused with the slapstick. The oldest boy's hair turns bright orange in a twinkling of the writer's eye, having been doused with a non-FDA-approved hair tonic. (Why any boy of Bobby's age, or any age, would be investing in something as outmoded and unidentifiable as "hair tonic" remains to be explained. As any kid on the show could tell the writer, the old hair-tonic routine is right out of "Our Gang." Let's face it, we're long since past the "little dab'll do ya" era.)

Without belaboring the inequities of the script, which are varied and numerous, the major point to all this is: Once an actor has geared himself to play a given style with its prescribed level of belief, he cannot react to or accept within the same confines of the piece, a different style.

When the kid's hair turns red, it is Batman in the operating room.

I can't play it.

Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=216458#ixzz3GKwBTGAq

 

[packersfan]

I can't read all that but is the Cliff Notes version that Robert Reed for some reason thought The Brady Bunch should be compared to theater work?

 

[El Floppo]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

Right. And Tyrese being to much of a wuss to immediately kill gum-chewer is totally consistent with his character, even if it looks idiotic to the viewers, who are aware of who he is with and what they are.

yeah- I actually like that Tyrese wasn't going to kill that guy in cold blood.

I'm fine with that...somewhat. I've got a baby to protect so I'd snap his neck...but that's me. And after I've already twisted his ankles back and interrogated him.

But I had issue with the baby choking scene. Just shoot him...or have him pick up the baby so I can be OK with him not shooting.

yeah- true. tyrese running around from window to window to door to check for zombies (hint- there's zombies)... felt like lazy writing to get the gum-chewer someplace where he could set himself free.

tyrese not killing the guy afterwards was a-ok for me.

 

[tdoss]

I like that, "Batman in the operating room"...

 

[Parrothead]

I can't read all that but is the Cliff Notes version that Robert Reed for some reason thought The Brady Bunch should be compared to theater work?

he's just mad he never got a love scene with Sam the butcher

 

[tdoss]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

totally agree. like with Pinkman in Breaking Bad, I'm all for characters doing things that drive the plot forward because it's not always the right thing. if they're doing things that make no real sense based on their personality or situation just to drive the plot... no thanks.

Right. And Tyrese being to much of a wuss to immediately kill gum-chewer is totally consistent with his character, even if it looks idiotic to the viewers, who are aware of who he is with and what they are.

yeah- I actually like that Tyrese wasn't going to kill that guy in cold blood.

I'm fine with that...somewhat. I've got a baby to protect so I'd snap his neck...but that's me. And after I've already twisted his ankles back and interrogated him.But I had issue with the baby choking scene. Just shoot him...or have him pick up the baby so I can be OK with him not shooting.

yeah- true. tyrese running around from window to window to door to check for zombies (hint- there's zombies)... felt like lazy writing to get the gum-chewer someplace where he could set himself free.

tyrese not killing the guy afterwards was a-ok for me.

Exactly...let me just set this little white baby down near you...While I go check the other side of the room to see if zombies are coming.

"Batman in the operating room"

 

[stbugs]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

True, but unfortunately Andrea may have been a writing issue. I think in the comics she plays a bigger part according to previous comments on here, so maybe they wanted her to stay around longer.

Personally, I think they could have saved her character and some stupid stuff with the Governor (I only liked his loner episodes/meeting the family, didn't like takeover of the group and assault part deux) if they let her kill him in that factory. They set it up so damn well, only to have his miraculous escape and capture of her before Rick spotted her.

See tdoss, we do criticize the show. It isn't all roses and puppies. I just don't care to nitpick and respond to places where I don't think there were issues/plot holes.

I thought the Governor was worse than Andrea. That said- I agree about seeing more of an actual person during those loner episodes- otherwise he's just an annoying, cartoonish plot-driving device.

Agreed, I didn't like the Governor at all, except during those loner episodes.

 

[Thunderlips]

I can't read all that but is the Cliff Notes version that Robert Reed for some reason thought The Brady Bunch should be compared to theater work?

Every show has to adhere to the accepted concepts of the show that were originally set down. It can't work on Gilligans Island if the Archie Bunker character established in All in the Family shows up on the island and begins pontificating.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

I think my favorite pic is her at the chalkboard

She really is crazy hot. No doubt about it.

Until she starts speaking. Don't get me wrong, she's hella hot. But after hearing her on Talking Dead, I'd be lying if I said it's not a slight turnoff.

 

[El Floppo]

I can't read all that but is the Cliff Notes version that Robert Reed for some reason thought The Brady Bunch should be compared to theater work?

but but but but... whattabout batman?

 

[El Floppo]

guis, guise; its a show abuot zombis. it dont has to be realistic. just relaxx

pretty similar to Mad Men so far.

 

[packersfan]

I can't read all that but is the Cliff Notes version that Robert Reed for some reason thought The Brady Bunch should be compared to theater work?

Every show has to adhere to the accepted concepts of the show that were originally set down. It can't work on Gilligans Island if the Archie Bunker character established in All in the Family shows up on the island and begins pontificating.

While true you also have to understand what the show is about. A show like The Brady Bunch, for example, is probably going to strain common sense credibility in many instances because that's what goofy sit-coms do. Expecting it to be high art or adhere to standards it clearly never was intended to adhere to strikes me as rather foolish.

With regard to The Walking Dead, I haven't found many instances when the characters behaved in a way that made me think less of the show or the story being told. The most prominent example was Andrea in Season 3 and her consistently idiotic behavior did undermine the story for me. But more often than not the things people take issue with in this thread don't bother me greatly or at all and do not detract from my enjoyment of the story. If that makes me an apologist so be it.

 

[packersfan]

guis, guise; its a show abuot zombis. it dont has to be realistic. just relaxx

pretty similar to Mad Men so far.

I've posted before but the common thread between the three main AMC shows is how annoying the wives of the lead characters often were. At one point or another (and many times a whole lot of the time), Skyler White, Betty Draper and Lori Grimes were all rather gigantic b*****s.

 

[stbugs]

5: fans of the show who find the silly things silly- and are able to talk about them without diminishing their own ability in liking the show.

you guys (WD apologists) don't have to defend every single thing- there's a lot of bizarre and poorly written stuff in this show... learn to embrace and enjoy it. there is a middle ground here.

It's weird how defensive and personal the apologists seem to get over this show.It's like someone is saying their baby is ugly or something.

Nothing is personal, this is a freaking message board, it just gets old in the thread to have so many complaints cluttering it up. Especially when half of them are complaints that aren't even valid (like the propane tank ones and worrying about them deciding to make sure they escape and not risk fighting zombies for more guns). I don't care if you like the show or not, I'd (me personally) rather discuss what happened and potential for what happens next. As bigbottom said above, it was a great episode with a lot that happened and IMHO, it gets annoying to keep reading complaints, especially ones that aren't really correct. That said, we can reply to your complaints and point out all the holes just like you can complain about whatever you want.

Nothing valid about your defense of leaving those weapons on the ground.And I didn't bring up the propane tank, bottle rocket shot...not really my argument.

No one has told me why Tyrese didn't blast that fool with the baby...or why they're so concerned about counting every round expended but waste countless rounds trying to rat maze them to the freight cars. It was ridiculous drama for the sake of drama...no one would've done that...they'd have disarmed them and simply walked them into the freight car.

And simple discussion "fixed" that blood trough scene for the better by simply swapping Bob for Glenn. No one in their right mind thought Glenn was ever in ANY danger.

Man, whatever I say, you will disagree with regardless, but here I go again.1. It was very valid. First of all, you said they left weapons at their feet. That is wrong. They were a good 20-30 yards away. Second, you stated that they were wasting countless rounds, which tells me that there were a lot of zombies coming that way. Third, you act like this is a video game where you just need to walk near weapons and have them magically picked up. They were all being eaten, so there were already zombies all over them. My point is that they made the choice to go for the escape and not risk picking up weapons that may not have been easy with all of the zombies around. Plus, you said they were wasting a lot of rounds, so maybe, there wasn't much ammo left anyway. Also, as I stated in my response (which you never countered) before, Rick was able to shoot Garreth due to surprise on the way to saving his comrades. If they stopped, fought walkers with pipes/knives, Garreth and his men up top could have easily been ready and thus a firefight or people in the group dead or no escape would have been much more likely than what occurred (surprising Garreth, saving the rest of the group and a narrow escape). So, in summary, I disagree that picking up those weapons, for which they may not have had more ammo, was not the right move and they made the right move to escape and get back to their existing cache of weapons for which they had more ammo.

2. Pretty obvious that Tyrese is a very emotional guy. He was caring for two girls that both died and he wasn't ready to get back to being like Carol and being an emotionless killer. That reason may not be good enough for you, but that sure seemed to be what they implied and whether you like it or not, that is his character. He was hoping he wouldn't have to kill that guy and he screwed up.

3. I think you are assuming that Garreth running a tight ship means that they can't fire weapons. He killed his friend because he wasn't doinng a good job bringing Rick in, he's been altered a bit by the trauma they went through and I think the ammo counting has more to do with his making sure he has full 100% control of his folks than saving ammo. It is also weird that you think they wouldn't use the ammo when they are being attacked by a herd of zombies, which clearly they had never encountered. Did you see the people running scared at the fence when Carol was shooting the tank? Seemed to me that they weren't ready for the zombies, just other humans.

4. Who cares about switching Bob. Of course we knew Glenn lived, I saw it in the previews. We all new the guy would stop swinging, so why does it matter that they didn't make us worried about Bob? Maybe Bob was in the previews as well, I don't recall. I knew it would stop at Glenn. It is kind of like the bottle rocket. We knew she was going to blow up the tank, it was happening no matter what. Maybe I would have liked her to point it giving it more realism, but it was going to happen, no need to worry about it. I probably would have been more worried about Bob as well, but it doesn't bother me.

There are my thoughts, have at them.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about the wasting of ammo in fighting the zombie horde...that's not what I'm referring to...

I'm talking about when they rounded Rick's crew up at the end of last season. They fire off round after round to herd them to the freight cars. That's just useless tv drama. No one would do that...especially if they were so damned concerned about every single round someone has used. They'd simply disarm them and walk them to the freight car at gunpoint.

You missed my point in #3 completely. I don't think they were concerned about every single round they used. Did Garreth say he was pissed they used 34 or was he trying to display that he ran an ultra tight ship because he didn't want what happened before to happen again? I posted in here before the premiere that I felt like the Terminus guys were a well oiled machine and well prepared. I didn't know about their past, but my observation is valid. Because of what they went through before when they were loose and letting anyone in to try and protect them, Garreth turned them into a group of people that pay attention to every detail and do things according to the book. He killed one of his friends (Alex) who went through the trauma with him with no thought. Alex went off the books and didn't have the situation under control so he killed him.

Never once did they say that there was a concern of wasted ammo. It has been a control issue with Garreth starting with killing Alex. Even the two butchers talked about sticking to protocol not being on security detail, i.e. ignore the explosion and continue butchering.

Does that make sense?

ETA: Any thoughts on #1 or do you agree that they might have made the right move leaving the weapons to the zombies?

 

[packersfan]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

I think my favorite pic is her at the chalkboard

She really is crazy hot. No doubt about it.

Until she starts speaking. Don't get me wrong, she's hella hot. But after hearing her on Talking Dead, I'd be lying if I said it's not a slight turnoff.

You don't like a chick with an English accent? For me it's

 

[Papa Georgio]

Sorry if I am Hippling but filters block certain pages at work. I usually only try to poke holes in shows or stories whose premise is to be scientifically or realistically plausible. If the show takes pride in being that way, then they better honor that.

Otherwise I just sit back and try to be entertained.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sharp Magazine.

Lauren Cohan.

You're welcome.

I think my favorite pic is her at the chalkboard

She really is crazy hot. No doubt about it.

Until she starts speaking. Don't get me wrong, she's hella hot. But after hearing her on Talking Dead, I'd be lying if I said it's not a slight turnoff.

You don't like a chick with an English accent? For me it's

I do. A lot. And I really wanted her to sound awesome. But she was as dumb as a rock. And it really hurt the sound of her accent. Maybe she was just nervous to be on live TV, but it was painful. I believe we talked about it in this thread when it happened. I wasn't the only person who thought it.

That said, she's still smoking hot.

 

[Thunderlips]

I can't read all that but is the Cliff Notes version that Robert Reed for some reason thought The Brady Bunch should be compared to theater work?

Every show has to adhere to the accepted concepts of the show that were originally set down. It can't work on Gilligans Island if the Archie Bunker character established in All in the Family shows up on the island and begins pontificating.

While true you also have to understand what the show is about. A show like The Brady Bunch, for example, is probably going to strain common sense credibility in many instances because that's what goofy sit-coms do. Expecting it to be high art or adhere to standards it clearly never was intended to adhere to strikes me as rather foolish.

With regard to The Walking Dead, I haven't found many instances when the characters behaved in a way that made me think less of the show or the story being told. The most prominent example was Andrea in Season 3 and her consistently idiotic behavior did undermine the story for me. But more often than not the things people take issue with in this thread don't bother me greatly or at all and do not detract from my enjoyment of the story. If that makes me an apologist so be it.

I agree about The Walking Dead (but not The Brady Bunch).....but I think one has to also include the concept that the "mechanics" or "physics" of the show have to behave in a way consistent to the way they've been laid out in the show (barring a legitimate excuse). To that, I'd have to agree with the point about Carol opening up the door not being consistent with the manner in which they've before laid out zombie guts as effective camouflage. IIRC, they made a point in showing Rick and Glenn behaving like zombies in order to make it thru....something Carol didn't have to do.

I love the show BTW......I just like nerdy nitpicking.

 

[flapgreen]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

Yes

 

[cstu]

I think it's far more interesting to see characters mess up than always do the right thing. Creates more drama and opens up the potential for much stronger character development. One of the things I like about Rick, for example, is he hasn't always done the right thing. His decisions haven't always worked out. The great part about that in my opinion is the show has shown him pay a price for his mistakes and his character has grown as a result. I'd rather watch these characters stumble and fall and figure things out as they go. That strikes me as extremely realistic in this environment.

That said, when a character does something inexplicably stupid time after time after time after time (i.e. Season 3 Andrea) that's when the show will suffer and the storytelling will lag as a result.

Just my two cents.

True, but unfortunately Andrea may have been a writing issue. I think in the comics she plays a bigger part according to previous comments on here, so maybe they wanted her to stay around longer.

Personally, I think they could have saved her character and some stupid stuff with the Governor (I only liked his loner episodes/meeting the family, didn't like takeover of the group and assault part deux) if they let her kill him in that factory. They set it up so damn well, only to have his miraculous escape and capture of her before Rick spotted her.

See tdoss, we do criticize the show. It isn't all roses and puppies. I just don't care to nitpick and respond to places where I don't think there were issues/plot holes.

I thought the Governor was worse than Andrea. That said- I agree about seeing more of an actual person during those loner episodes- otherwise he's just an annoying, cartoonish plot-driving device.

Agreed, I didn't like the Governor at all, except during those loner episodes.

My issue with the Governor is he would instantly switch from almost normal to pure psychopath with no remorse. His character didn't make any sense to me.

 

[Harry Manback]

This show is still more realistic than sons of anarchy

 

[identikit]

This show is still more realistic than sons of anarchy

Sure is.

By a mile.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

This show is still more realistic than sons of anarchy

Is SOA the benchmark you really want to use in terms of realism?

"Hey, the Walking Dead is still more realistic than Scooby Doo!"

 

[flapgreen]

I'm cool with it.

 

[Harry Manback]

This show is still more realistic than sons of anarchy

Is SOA the benchmark you really want to use in terms of realism?

"Hey, the Walking Dead is still more realistic than Scooby Doo!"

I'm pretty sure Scooby Doo is way more realistic than both of those shows.

 

[tdoss]

5: fans of the show who find the silly things silly- and are able to talk about them without diminishing their own ability in liking the show.

you guys (WD apologists) don't have to defend every single thing- there's a lot of bizarre and poorly written stuff in this show... learn to embrace and enjoy it. there is a middle ground here.

It's weird how defensive and personal the apologists seem to get over this show.It's like someone is saying their baby is ugly or something.

Nothing is personal, this is a freaking message board, it just gets old in the thread to have so many complaints cluttering it up. Especially when half of them are complaints that aren't even valid (like the propane tank ones and worrying about them deciding to make sure they escape and not risk fighting zombies for more guns). I don't care if you like the show or not, I'd (me personally) rather discuss what happened and potential for what happens next. As bigbottom said above, it was a great episode with a lot that happened and IMHO, it gets annoying to keep reading complaints, especially ones that aren't really correct. That said, we can reply to your complaints and point out all the holes just like you can complain about whatever you want.

Nothing valid about your defense of leaving those weapons on the ground.And I didn't bring up the propane tank, bottle rocket shot...not really my argument.

No one has told me why Tyrese didn't blast that fool with the baby...or why they're so concerned about counting every round expended but waste countless rounds trying to rat maze them to the freight cars. It was ridiculous drama for the sake of drama...no one would've done that...they'd have disarmed them and simply walked them into the freight car.

And simple discussion "fixed" that blood trough scene for the better by simply swapping Bob for Glenn. No one in their right mind thought Glenn was ever in ANY danger.

Man, whatever I say, you will disagree with regardless, but here I go again.1. It was very valid. First of all, you said they left weapons at their feet. That is wrong. They were a good 20-30 yards away. Second, you stated that they were wasting countless rounds, which tells me that there were a lot of zombies coming that way. Third, you act like this is a video game where you just need to walk near weapons and have them magically picked up. They were all being eaten, so there were already zombies all over them. My point is that they made the choice to go for the escape and not risk picking up weapons that may not have been easy with all of the zombies around. Plus, you said they were wasting a lot of rounds, so maybe, there wasn't much ammo left anyway. Also, as I stated in my response (which you never countered) before, Rick was able to shoot Garreth due to surprise on the way to saving his comrades. If they stopped, fought walkers with pipes/knives, Garreth and his men up top could have easily been ready and thus a firefight or people in the group dead or no escape would have been much more likely than what occurred (surprising Garreth, saving the rest of the group and a narrow escape). So, in summary, I disagree that picking up those weapons, for which they may not have had more ammo, was not the right move and they made the right move to escape and get back to their existing cache of weapons for which they had more ammo.

2. Pretty obvious that Tyrese is a very emotional guy. He was caring for two girls that both died and he wasn't ready to get back to being like Carol and being an emotionless killer. That reason may not be good enough for you, but that sure seemed to be what they implied and whether you like it or not, that is his character. He was hoping he wouldn't have to kill that guy and he screwed up.

3. I think you are assuming that Garreth running a tight ship means that they can't fire weapons. He killed his friend because he wasn't doinng a good job bringing Rick in, he's been altered a bit by the trauma they went through and I think the ammo counting has more to do with his making sure he has full 100% control of his folks than saving ammo. It is also weird that you think they wouldn't use the ammo when they are being attacked by a herd of zombies, which clearly they had never encountered. Did you see the people running scared at the fence when Carol was shooting the tank? Seemed to me that they weren't ready for the zombies, just other humans.

4. Who cares about switching Bob. Of course we knew Glenn lived, I saw it in the previews. We all new the guy would stop swinging, so why does it matter that they didn't make us worried about Bob? Maybe Bob was in the previews as well, I don't recall. I knew it would stop at Glenn. It is kind of like the bottle rocket. We knew she was going to blow up the tank, it was happening no matter what. Maybe I would have liked her to point it giving it more realism, but it was going to happen, no need to worry about it. I probably would have been more worried about Bob as well, but it doesn't bother me.

There are my thoughts, have at them.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about the wasting of ammo in fighting the zombie horde...that's not what I'm referring to...I'm talking about when they rounded Rick's crew up at the end of last season. They fire off round after round to herd them to the freight cars. That's just useless tv drama. No one would do that...especially if they were so damned concerned about every single round someone has used. They'd simply disarm them and walk them to the freight car at gunpoint.

You missed my point in #3 completely. I don't think they were concerned about every single round they used. Did Garreth say he was pissed they used 34 or was he trying to display that he ran an ultra tight ship because he didn't want what happened before to happen again? I posted in here before the premiere that I felt like the Terminus guys were a well oiled machine and well prepared. I didn't know about their past, but my observation is valid. Because of what they went through before when they were loose and letting anyone in to try and protect them, Garreth turned them into a group of people that pay attention to every detail and do things according to the book. He killed one of his friends (Alex) who went through the trauma with him with no thought. Alex went off the books and didn't have the situation under control so he killed him.Never once did they say that there was a concern of wasted ammo. It has been a control issue with Garreth starting with killing Alex. Even the two butchers talked about sticking to protocol not being on security detail, i.e. ignore the explosion and continue butchering.

Does that make sense?

ETA: Any thoughts on #1 or do you agree that they might have made the right move leaving the weapons to the zombies?

I do not agree about leaving the weapons...sorry but I'll never be convinced that...we'll have to just agree to disagree. I don't think anyone at that moment would leave those weapons for sticks.

 

[badmojo1006]

Laurie Holden is a bad-a** in real life. Part of a rescue operation, saved 55 underage Sex Slaves in Columbia

 

[FlapJacks]

Laurie Holden is a bad-a** in real life. Part of a rescue operation, saved 55 underage Sex Slaves in Columbia

the writers really #### the bed with her character....

 

[phatdawg]

Laurie Holden is a bad-a** in real life. Part of a rescue operation, saved 55 underage Sex Slaves in Columbia

the writers really #### the bed with her character....

For me, this was the greatest travesty of the show. They had a blueprint in the comics and wasted a potentially great character.

 

[Harry Manback]

Laurie Holden is a bad-a** in real life. Part of a rescue operation, saved 55 underage Sex Slaves in Columbia

the writers really #### the bed with her character....

For me, this was the greatest travesty of the show. They had a blueprint in the comics and wasted a potentially great character.

Yep.

 

[ghostguy123]

When people do stupid things that make no sense- regardless of apologists being able to frame a ridiculous rationale for the behavior- the show fails.

Lots of stupid people doing stupid stuff in this world. Just look around.

ok- not stupid.. .irrational, nonsensical, and counter to what the person's previous behavior or current situation would dictate. I don't see a lot of that in the world- even if I see lots of stupidity.

write the character as an idiot, and I'm ok with them acting like an idiot (early Pinkman in Breaking Bad).

Well, add in basically no sleep and who knows if they are even eating.