Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***OFFICIAL 'The Walking Dead' TV Series Thread*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter goonsquad
- Start date
kentric
Footballguy
So you think its out of the question that he kills them outright? I don't think they will do that, but if I'm in an apocolyptic situation, the last thing I want around my womens is a bunch of sex-starved criminals. I'd seriously consider putting them down.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Maybe the womens would prefer the sex-starved criminals and would shoot Rick and the boyz first. For a reference point, find bigbottom's post about Shane hammering Lori face down in the dirt and how much she enjoyed it. Or the post about Carol liking it rough.Gotta think outside the box.
Copeman
Footballguy
Whats there not to understand? The slow times are mostly times when they are showing the characters talking. Character development.
shadyridr
Footballguy
Then you followed it up with there isn't much character development in this. So which is itWhats there not to understand? The slow times are mostly times when they are showing the characters talking. Character development.
Copeman
Footballguy
I don't think there are many slow times at all, and those times that are slow, they show the actors talking etc...Character development.Then you followed it up with there isn't much character development in this. So which is itWhats there not to understand? The slow times are mostly times when they are showing the characters talking. Character development.
Not sure what you're asking.
Unless it's just to argue about something pointless, which wouldn't be shocking on this board.
I believe one of the writers early last year said something along the lines of they want the characters to be fallible and make mistakes. If the characters didn't make mistakes or get themselves into hot water every once in a while, there wouldn't be much of a show.A lot of people didn't like the early part of season 2 as much but it really ratchets up starting with episode 7 and never lets up after that.
mr roboto
Footballguy
You said 'Not that there is much character development in this.'I don't think there are many slow times at all, and those times that are slow, they show the actors talking etc...Character development.Then you followed it up with there isn't much character development in this. So which is itWhats there not to understand? The slow times are mostly times when they are showing the characters talking. Character development.
Not sure what you're asking.
Unless it's just to argue about something pointless, which wouldn't be shocking on this board.
To summarize your case
Premise 1: Some people complain about slow times in a narrative series.
Premise 2: Character development is what can occur during slow times.
Premise 3: There is not much character development in this particular narrative series.
Therefore: middle of season 2 was simply a ####### drag.
Copeman
Footballguy
Now I'm not sure if you guys are trying to argue for whatever reason or are just misunderstanding me. Whatever...I said there isn't much character development, but during the slow times they try to give the viewer something in regards to characters development. And there wasn't much slow time, except for a few episodes in season 2 which has been alluded to and I agree with. Therefore, there hasn't really BEEN much character development.You said 'Not that there is much character development in this.'I don't think there are many slow times at all, and those times that are slow, they show the actors talking etc...Character development.Then you followed it up with there isn't much character development in this. So which is itWhats there not to understand? The slow times are mostly times when they are showing the characters talking. Character development.
Not sure what you're asking.
Unless it's just to argue about something pointless, which wouldn't be shocking on this board.
To summarize your case
Premise 1: Some people complain about slow times in a narrative series.
Premise 2: Character development is what can occur during slow times.
Premise 3: There is not much character development in this particular narrative series.
Therefore: middle of season 2 was simply a ####### drag.
Comprende'?
packersfan
Footballguy
I know some people hated how much time was spent on the farm in Season 2 but I thought it worked quite well. The group found what they believed to be a safe haven only to have it all be ripped apart both internally (i.e. Shane) and eventually externally when the zombies came marching in. I think it was important for the show to demonstrate that there could be a false sense of security and safety only to have it all undone both by human (something I'm guessing we'll see even more of this season) and zombie forces.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
my head hurts nowNow I'm not sure if you guys are trying to argue for whatever reason or are just misunderstanding me. Whatever...I said there isn't much character development, but during the slow times they try to give the viewer something in regards to characters development. And there wasn't much slow time, except for a few episodes in season 2 which has been alluded to and I agree with. Therefore, there hasn't really BEEN much character development.You said 'Not that there is much character development in this.'I don't think there are many slow times at all, and those times that are slow, they show the actors talking etc...Character development.Then you followed it up with there isn't much character development in this. So which is itWhats there not to understand? The slow times are mostly times when they are showing the characters talking. Character development.
Not sure what you're asking.
Unless it's just to argue about something pointless, which wouldn't be shocking on this board.
To summarize your case
Premise 1: Some people complain about slow times in a narrative series.
Premise 2: Character development is what can occur during slow times.
Premise 3: There is not much character development in this particular narrative series.
Therefore: middle of season 2 was simply a ####### drag.
Comprende'?
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Son, you got to think outside the box, to get into the box.
- Grandpa Thunderlips -
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Marvin
Footballguy
Damn, never thought of it that way. I get it now.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
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.
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.
Marvin
Footballguy
Exactly.Of course Sherwood Schwartz (or maybe it was his son Lloyd) said "Robert Reed is the kind of actor that if he got bad reviews playing Hamlet would say 'hey, I didn't write this s**t!'"
Thunderlips
Footballguy
LOL.
cstu
Footballguy
A shorter chain would have been better but it was a brilliant way to lock a chain link fence quickly. The weak spot would be the chain link itself breaking but I think it's good enough to hold a small number of zombies for awhile.
shuke
Black Ice Skeptic
Now I'm not sure if you guys are trying to argue for whatever reason or are just misunderstanding me. Whatever...I said there isn't much character development, but during the slow times they try to give the viewer something in regards to characters development. And there wasn't much slow time, except for a few episodes in season 2 which has been alluded to and I agree with. Therefore, there hasn't really BEEN much character development.You said 'Not that there is much character development in this.'I don't think there are many slow times at all, and those times that are slow, they show the actors talking etc...Character development.Then you followed it up with there isn't much character development in this. So which is itWhats there not to understand? The slow times are mostly times when they are showing the characters talking. Character development.
Not sure what you're asking.
Unless it's just to argue about something pointless, which wouldn't be shocking on this board.
To summarize your case
Premise 1: Some people complain about slow times in a narrative series.
Premise 2: Character development is what can occur during slow times.
Premise 3: There is not much character development in this particular narrative series.
Therefore: middle of season 2 was simply a ####### drag.
Comprende'?
This thread is better than the show.
kentric
Footballguy
That just supports my point. Don't want them to have the option. Put these guys down and when the women ask what went on you just say, "only found some walkers". No harm, no foul.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Dang, I made the classic mistake of thinking conventionally, and how many times have I chided people in here for doing the same? I completely forgot that women will be second class (if that) citizens in the post-apocalyptic world.
snogger
Footballguy
Pretty good video "wrap" on 301 discussing things that went on over the winter months, and the decision on the amputation..
Is it Sunday yet???
Is it Sunday yet???
Last edited by a moderator:
Marvin
Footballguy
No, it's Thursday.Pretty good video "wrap" on 301 discussing things that went on over the winter months, and the decision on the amputation..
Is it Sunday yet???
This thread is like a number of the political threads. Every time I check it, there are a multiple new pages, and I have no intention of reading through them. If you want to curse or whatever without getting caught by a mod, this is probably as good a place as any.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
#### you.*crosses fingers*
attaché case
Footballguy
Has anyone checked out Talking Dead on AMC, which airs after the new episodes? Its hosted by Chris Hardwick, who does The Nerdist Podcast, and I guess they have guests and discuss the episode, theories, etc.
I forgot about it last week, I got my DVR set to record this one and see if its any good.
---
AMC Talking Dead is the network's first live after-show that serves as a platform for discussion for AMC’s series, The Walking Dead. The half-hour episodes are produced by Michael Davies’ Embassy Row and are hosted by Chris Hardwick (host of The Nerdist Podcast). Talking Dead premieres Sunday, Oct 14 at 11/10c, immediately following the encore presentation of The Walking Dead, AMC Talking Dead features Hardwick spending time with fans, actors, producers and TV enthusiasts, recapping that most recent Dead episode, providing sneak-peeks and discussion of upcoming episodes and taking questions and comments from viewers. The series is executive produced by Michael Davies and co-executive produced by Jen Kelly from Embassy Row.
I forgot about it last week, I got my DVR set to record this one and see if its any good.
---
AMC Talking Dead is the network's first live after-show that serves as a platform for discussion for AMC’s series, The Walking Dead. The half-hour episodes are produced by Michael Davies’ Embassy Row and are hosted by Chris Hardwick (host of The Nerdist Podcast). Talking Dead premieres Sunday, Oct 14 at 11/10c, immediately following the encore presentation of The Walking Dead, AMC Talking Dead features Hardwick spending time with fans, actors, producers and TV enthusiasts, recapping that most recent Dead episode, providing sneak-peeks and discussion of upcoming episodes and taking questions and comments from viewers. The series is executive produced by Michael Davies and co-executive produced by Jen Kelly from Embassy Row.
Last edited by a moderator:
snogger
Footballguy
JoeSteeler
Footballguy
have been watching it every week since the beginning. I like the "In Memoriam" (highlighting the deaths from the episode) and episode trivia. also a big fan of chris hardwick. the guests are hit and miss IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANo, it's Thursday.Pretty good video "wrap" on 301 discussing things that went on over the winter months, and the decision on the amputation..
Is it Sunday yet???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
mr roboto
Footballguy
They interview T Dog (actor)"T Dog wants to go one day without killing zombies. T Dog is tired."Pretty good video "wrap" on 301 discussing things that went on over the winter months, and the decision on the amputation..
Is it Sunday yet???
That's it.
packersfan
Footballguy
Agree with all that. I also have liked Hardwick from his "Attack of the Show" days on G4. Guests can be really odd sometimes. This week, for example, has Will Wheaton on. Sorry but I really don't care what Wesley Crusher thinks about the Governor.On a separate note, here's a good article which says "The Walking Dead" could be this season's top un-scripted show, a pretty impressive accomplishment were it to happen for a cable program.'JoeSteeler said:
Link
kentric
Footballguy
Why should it change after an apocalypse? I just don't see a cache of sex-starved, locked-up prisoners mixing well with a binder full of women.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
bump
mad sweeney
Footballguy
To be fair, after a long period of incarceration topped off with an even more intense end-of-the-world lockup, a lot of those guys may prefer the company of men, as it were.
Dexter
Footballguy
Good point. People want to read into it when the writers give you the answers most of the time. It's up to the viewer whether to believe it or not. I agree the writes made it clear they where going around in a huge circle because they are completely surrounded by Walkers.I'm looking forward to seeing what live is like on the inside for them and how everything plays out with the inmates and governor.Also I've read all the books so I know how it plays out in the comics but the TV show could and hopefully goes in another direction.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
AMC is back on DISH, channel 131! Catch last week's season premiere of The Walking Dead at 8pm EST, immediately followed by an all-new episode at 9pm EST. Thanks to all our fans for their support.
http://www.amcnetworks.com/release_release_press.jsp?nodeid=6595
http://www.amcnetworks.com/release_release_press.jsp?nodeid=6595
attaché case
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Damn! I will miss episode 2 to watch the Giants/Cards game
snogger
Footballguy
Guessing dish caved after last week... Lot's of
in dish upper management offices after seeing the ratings.
Statorama
Footballguy
Saw a lot of DirecTV ads aimed right at "You can't see this on Dish"
mad sweeney
Footballguy
That's AMC running ads on their own ad time. Every network that shows AMC has those same Not On Dish messages. Only thing about this that surprises me is that it was Walking Dead and not Breaking Bad that sealed the deal.
Statorama
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
What was in the meat locker that made Rick gag?
Super King
Footballguy
hundreds of pounds of rotting meat?
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
naaa...they smell rotting corpses every day...meat wouldn't make him gag
babydemon90
Footballguy
do not f with Rick, imo.
Super King
Footballguy
Didn't think he was going to it, then BAM! Dome shot
