***OFFICIAL 'The Walking Dead' TV Series Thread*** (6 Viewers)

[Thunderlips]

It's inconsistent in the sense that some weeks, they'll give you really "WTF" and on the edge moments (not related to zombie gore).......but then other weeks they pull punches and play to a (IMO) crowd that wants to say they like zombie/apocalyptic movies but doesn't want to deal with the (zombie squashing aside) depravity and despair that comes out of those movies.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm a fan of the show and watch every week and look forward to watching it, but there is some really bad writing at times, and that's ok. I don't mean the gas thing because who cares and they're treating gas an an unlimited resource in this world they've created and that's fine. I don't even mind some of the seemingly mind-numbing bad decisions because first, it's just a story and sometimes they need to create a specific scenario even if it's a ham handed setup, and second, I'm pretty sure if this was real life people would be making bad decisions all over the place.

But the way that dude died was just horrible. It's completely unbelievable. It's hard to believe that when that was written every one was like yeah ok, and even harder to believe when they watched back the execution of that scene they were like yep nailed it. Does anyone actually think that was well written or well shot?

It's ok to criticize it and still enjoy the show.

The gas issue was pretty big. I didn't sleep for a week after it was discussed in here the first time.

 

[packersfan]

I don't think they can have the pace consistently be like the prior two episodes were or the Season 5 premiere, for example. That would be too unrelenting. I think they need to have ebbs and flows with the pace. And I like the fact they take the time to do character episodes like the one last night. People can debate how effective and successful they are but it's clear they are doing them and they are trying to deepen the characters. That's always been the case.

 

[tonydead]

I'm a fan of the show and watch every week and look forward to watching it, but there is some really bad writing at times, and that's ok. I don't mean the gas thing because who cares and they're treating gas an an unlimited resource in this world they've created and that's fine. I don't even mind some of the seemingly mind-numbing bad decisions because first, it's just a story and sometimes they need to create a specific scenario even if it's a ham handed setup, and second, I'm pretty sure if this was real life people would be making bad decisions all over the place.

But the way that dude died was just horrible. It's completely unbelievable. It's hard to believe that when that was written every one was like yeah ok, and even harder to believe when they watched back the execution of that scene they were like yep nailed it. Does anyone actually think that was well written or well shot?

It's ok to criticize it and still enjoy the show.

Keep in mind these are the same people who slowly rolled a van off a 30 foot bridge and expected it to actually land on it's wheels. They actually put weight in the back of the van thinking that would make the back end fall faster.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm a fan of the show and watch every week and look forward to watching it, but there is some really bad writing at times, and that's ok. I don't mean the gas thing because who cares and they're treating gas an an unlimited resource in this world they've created and that's fine. I don't even mind some of the seemingly mind-numbing bad decisions because first, it's just a story and sometimes they need to create a specific scenario even if it's a ham handed setup, and second, I'm pretty sure if this was real life people would be making bad decisions all over the place.

But the way that dude died was just horrible. It's completely unbelievable. It's hard to believe that when that was written every one was like yeah ok, and even harder to believe when they watched back the execution of that scene they were like yep nailed it. Does anyone actually think that was well written or well shot?

It's ok to criticize it and still enjoy the show.

This.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm a fan of the show and watch every week and look forward to watching it, but there is some really bad writing at times, and that's ok. I don't mean the gas thing because who cares and they're treating gas an an unlimited resource in this world they've created and that's fine. I don't even mind some of the seemingly mind-numbing bad decisions because first, it's just a story and sometimes they need to create a specific scenario even if it's a ham handed setup, and second, I'm pretty sure if this was real life people would be making bad decisions all over the place.

But the way that dude died was just horrible. It's completely unbelievable. It's hard to believe that when that was written every one was like yeah ok, and even harder to believe when they watched back the execution of that scene they were like yep nailed it. Does anyone actually think that was well written or well shot?

It's ok to criticize it and still enjoy the show.

STOP COMING OVER TO MY HOUSE EVERY SUNDAY AND RUINING THE SHOW FOR ME

 

[tonydead]

But the way that dude died was just horrible. It's completely unbelievable. It's hard to believe that when that was written every one was like yeah ok, and even harder to believe when they watched back the execution of that scene they were like yep nailed it. Does anyone actually think that was well written or well shot?

I never gave it a second thought until reading this thread. I still think it's believable that someone who hasn't had to protect anyone else besides a goat might not have made the sharpest decision in a moment of life or death involving the first person he's likely spent any time with in a few years or so. Was it a glorified way to go out? Nope but like I said earlier I don't need or want every character to die a hero's death. Sometimes they will die when they do stupid s**t.

It failed to reinforce the central theme of Aikido tho. The Aikido saved his life against the one true psychopath the forensic psychiatrist claims he had ever met and yet a brain dead walker gets him. That goes directly against the story line. The theme would have been better served by having him save Morgan with Aikido and then having him die later on with a heart attack from all the cheese or something.

 

[jamny]

The interactions between Morgan and Rick and Morgan and Carol would have been better if we knew his backstory earlier.

 

[tonydead]

Two weeks and the lack of a search function is going to make it really difficult to find and bump my posts when we find out that Glenn is indeed alive.

 

[shadyridr]

Two weeks and the lack of a search function is going to make it really difficult to find and bump my posts when we find out that Glenn is indeed alive.

comfortably numb has said he will no longer watch. Moops scoffed at the idea. And IK called us all idiots for thinking he was alive. Update your notebook.

 

[Statorama]

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.

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!'"

Hard to believe that dude was gay

 

[Mario Kart]

Best episode in a long while. Morgan needs to stay around for a good long time.

Who's yelling to open the gate?

 

[TenTimes]

rick's gonna show up and shoot that wolf the second he sees him.

Wondering what happens to Morgan when Rick/Carol find out about Morgan's prisoner.

 

[Statorama]

They'll cut off some zombie heads next week and everything will be right as rain

 

[Psychopav]

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 thats never happened to you?]. And the list goes on. Once again, we are infused with the slapstick. The oldest boys hair turns bright orange in a twinkling of the writers eye, having been doused with a non-FDA-approved hair tonic. (Why any boy of Bobbys 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. Lets face it, were long since past the little dabll 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 kids hair turns red, it is Batman in the operating room. I cant play it.

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!'"

Hard to believe that dude was gay

Sherwood Schwartz was GAY? :shocked:

 

[Psychopav]

I'm a fan of the show and watch every week and look forward to watching it, but there is some really bad writing at times, and that's ok. I don't mean the gas thing because who cares and they're treating gas an an unlimited resource in this world they've created and that's fine. I don't even mind some of the seemingly mind-numbing bad decisions because first, it's just a story and sometimes they need to create a specific scenario even if it's a ham handed setup, and second, I'm pretty sure if this was real life people would be making bad decisions all over the place.

But the way that dude died was just horrible. It's completely unbelievable. It's hard to believe that when that was written every one was like yeah ok, and even harder to believe when they watched back the execution of that scene they were like yep nailed it. Does anyone actually think that was well written or well shot?

It's ok to criticize it and still enjoy the show.

The gas issue was pretty big. I didn't sleep for a week after it was discussed in here the first time.

You're already sleeping again? WHY DO YOU EVEN WATCH THE SHOW? ? ! ? ! ! ?

 

[Hov34]

He wasn't covered in zombie goo though. He was covered in a live persons blood.

That's like a marinade.

 

[Zow]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

 

[tommyboy]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Settle down, rookie

 

[Zow]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Settle down, rookie

Oh yes sorry can we please get back to characters nobody cares about after five seasons and Carl baking a casserole.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

RIP, Drew Carey's cross-dressing brother.

 

[VA703]

well Morgan isn't going anywhere anytime soon. you don't dedicate 90 minutes to a short lived character. don't think we have seen any backstory for carol other than an abusive husband and she lost a daughter

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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 thats never happened to you?]. And the list goes on. Once again, we are infused with the slapstick. The oldest boys hair turns bright orange in a twinkling of the writers eye, having been doused with a non-FDA-approved hair tonic. (Why any boy of Bobbys 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. Lets face it, were long since past the little dabll 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 kids hair turns red, it is Batman in the operating room. I cant play it.

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!'"

Hard to believe that dude was gay

Sherwood Schwartz was GAY? :shocked:

so he was cured ?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Settle down, rookie

Oh yes sorry can we please get back to characters nobody cares about after five seasons and Carl baking a casserole.

pretty sure Rick ...Daryl and Carol are the back bone of this show...with a touch of Michonne thrown in

 

[3C's]

They'll cut off some zombie heads next week and everything will be right as rain

That's what I don't understand about the "this was boring, I want action...non-stop action" complaint. Action in this series is mostly walkers meander towards person, person shoots them in the head, sticks a knife in their head, whacks their head off, etc. Or they're a redshirt and they get eaten. Only so much of that I can take. Lack of a decent story made me want to quit some time back but it's definitely improved.

 

[snogger]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Settle down, rookie

Oh yes sorry can we please get back to characters nobody cares about after five seasons and Carl baking a casserole.

pretty sure Rick ...Daryl and Carol are the back bone of this show...with a touch of Michonne thrown in

If I recall correctly, her back story was flashbacks during a full episode of other happenings..

I think many of us liked the idea of getting a back story on Morgan, it's just that it was too long in my opinion..

Could have easily taken a "regular" 90 minute episode and used flashbacks to reveal his back story.

 

[El Floppo]

For me, the show succeeds when it's about how humanity deals with the zombipalooza. when it makes you think about your own sense of morality in various situations- human-human, human-pudding, etc. IMO, after all of these seasons, the show has established an understood moral code that works: zombies have to go, humans you deal with on a case-by-case level because comic book.

IMO- the peak was the look at the flowers episode, where we got a bit of everything. so when we get the kung fu tv show montage about how every life is sacred... hmmm... already proven false on the show; there are comic book villains out there with eyepatches who will kill everybody because. I liked the episode because of the acting, and I like Morgan's character a bit- but the on golden pond practice sequences were just terrible, and the overall idea is already a non-starter. I guess I'm also agreeing with those that would have liked it shorter and located in a different spot in the season.

 

[babydemon90]

I liked it.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'd like a little backstory on why the wolves are insane. They explained why the Termites went nuts.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Settle down, rookie

Oh yes sorry can we please get back to characters nobody cares about after five seasons and Carl baking a casserole.

Wrong. According to people here Carl was baking some character development.

 

[(HULK)]

Best episode in a long while. Morgan needs to stay around for a good long time.

Who's yelling to open the gate?

Sounded like Rick to me

 

[(HULK)]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Fellas, I'll handle this...

Look at the flowers Woz, look at the flowers.

 

[Franknbeans]

It really pisses me off when they kill off chicks with big breasts.

Another moment of silence

 

[(HULK)]

FYI, the All Out War arc from the comics should be coming soon. I'm expecting it to start sometime in the back half of this season.

It is, hands down, the best part of the comic.

 

[Zow]

They'll cut off some zombie heads next week and

everything will be right as rain

That's what I don't understand about the "this was boring, I want action...non-stop action" complaint. Action in this series is mostly walkers meander towards person, person shoots them in the head, sticks a knife in their head, whacks their head off, etc. Or they're a redshirt and they get eaten. Only so much of that I can take. Lack of a decent story

made me want to quit some time back but it's

definitely improved.

Agreed. They've gone to pretty creative lengths to try to make zombie killing as entertaining as possible, and for the first couple of seasons their scenes were intense (like the Rick running around Atlanta scene), but after five seasons we've seen it all. The zombies really are just a plot device and really just offer a threat when they appear in numbers or somebody goes deaf for a second and doesn't hear one coming. It makes scenes like eastman's tough b/c, from a plot standpoint it makes sense to have the zombified human that Morgan killed without reason kill the guy who essentially saved Morgan from his insanity, but to have one zombie kill one of two aikido masters without surprise was so practically silly the message got lost.

 

[Zow]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best

episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Fellas, I'll handle this...Look at the flowers Woz, look at the flowers.

Flowers? Don't you mean plants? Because I'd sure like to get back to riveting scenes of Rick gardening at a prison.

 

[El Floppo]

Just watched the new Morgan episode. Best

episode of the series. Eastman ruled.

Fellas, I'll handle this...Look at the flowers Woz, look at the flowers.

Flowers? Don't you mean plants? Because I'd sure like to get back to riveting scenes of Rick gardening at a prison.

no woz... look at the flowers.

 

[Franknbeans]

I'd like a little backstory on why the wolves are insane. They explained why the Termites went nuts.

and apparently they missed the run to CVS to pick up some toothbrushes and toothpaste

RIP

OK, what has happened to Judith? She has to be a toddler by now and I didn't see any baby gates establishing a perimeter. Has to be a scooby snack for a few of the zombies at this point.

 

[Thunderlips]

I'd like a little backstory on why the wolves are insane. They explained why the Termites went nuts.

Because...because they got all them teeth....but no toothbrush.

 

[packersfan]

FYI, the All Out War arc from the comics should be coming soon. I'm expecting it to start sometime in the back half of this season.

It is, hands down, the best part of the comic.

Was Terminus part of the comics? If so how would you rank the major story arcs in the comics below? Just curious how it could be a possible gauge as to what to expect on the show. Gimple seems to be more about directly lining the show up with the comics than his predecessors were. He said in an interview Kirkman has to often remind him to veer away some times.

Terminus

Hershel/Farm

Governor/Prison/Woodbury

War Arc

 

[Parrothead]

what is the shelf life of toothpaste?

 

[3C's]

Best episode in a long while. Morgan needs to stay around for a good long time.

Who's yelling to open the gate?

Sounded like Rick to me

Covered in #4 here http://moviepilot.com/posts/3620341which might be a spoiler to some. #1 was kind of cool though.

 

[Buzzbait]

For me, the show succeeds when it's about how humanity deals with the zombipalooza. when it makes you think about your own sense of morality in various situations- human-human, human-pudding, etc. IMO, after all of these seasons, the show has established an understood moral code that works: zombies have to go, humans you deal with on a case-by-case level because comic book.

Well put.

I really like this episode. I get it's a zombie show and I wouldn't be watching it if I didn't like the premise but an episode like this is welcome now and again. I found the Eastman character very interesting and thought the it was well acted The only thing I didn't care for, as others mentioned, is the way Eastman died. Pretty lame.

It's obvious that Morgan is wearing the aikido mask and is still conflicted on the inside. He's is a puffing volcano and I don't think he's going to keep it together for very long.

 

[Todem]

For me, the show succeeds when it's about how humanity deals with the zombipalooza. when it makes you think about your own sense of morality in various situations- human-human, human-pudding, etc. IMO, after all of these seasons, the show has established an understood moral code that works: zombies have to go, humans you deal with on a case-by-case level because comic book.

Well put.

I really like this episode. I get it's a zombie show and I wouldn't be watching it if I didn't like the premise but an episode like this is welcome now and again. I found the Eastman character very interesting and thought the it was well acted The only thing I didn't care for, as others mentioned, is the way Eastman died. Pretty lame.

It's obvious that Morgan is wearing the aikido mask and is still conflicted on the inside. He's is a puffing volcano and I don't think he's going to keep it together for very long.

Agreed. And now I am rooting so hard for Morgan to hold it together and find a balance.

Guy is a bad ### character IMO. We need more of them to join Carol, Daryl, Michonne and Rick.

 

[(HULK)]

FYI, the All Out War arc from the comics should be coming soon. I'm expecting it to start sometime in the back half of this season.

It is, hands down, the best part of the comic.

Was Terminus part of the comics? If so how would you rank the major story arcs in the comics below? Just curious how it could be a possible gauge as to what to expect on the show. Gimple seems to be more about directly lining the show up with the comics than his predecessors were. He said in an interview Kirkman has to often remind him to veer away some times.

Terminus

Hershel/Farm

Governor/Prison/Woodbury

War Arc

Terminus was NOT in the comics.

I liked the Governor/Prison arc in the comic probably 2nd best, but it was definitely better in the comic than the show.

All Out War was just super epic. And it totally changed the comic, I don't want spoil anything, but there is definitely a before/after with that arc.

Everything else blends in as pretty good.

 

[tonydead]

They'll cut off some zombie heads next week and everything will be right as rain

That's what I don't understand about the "this was boring, I want action...non-stop action" complaint. Action in this series is mostly walkers meander towards person, person shoots them in the head, sticks a knife in their head, whacks their head off, etc. Or they're a redshirt and they get eaten. Only so much of that I can take. Lack of a decent story made me want to quit some time back but it's definitely improved.

There isn't one post that claimed the bold about this episode. Not sure what makes you guys think this as there were multiple zombies and three humans that got killed during the episode. The two major complaints that I see are:

1- Why did it take 90 minutes to complete the Morgan episode when everyone is waiting to find out what happened to Glenn.

2- They screwed up the story/lazy writing again by letting Aikido Master Eastman get bit by a brain dead zombie.

 

[packersfan]

FYI, the All Out War arc from the comics should be coming soon. I'm expecting it to start sometime in the back half of this season.

It is, hands down, the best part of the comic.

Was Terminus part of the comics? If so how would you rank the major story arcs in the comics below? Just curious how it could be a possible gauge as to what to expect on the show. Gimple seems to be more about directly lining the show up with the comics than his predecessors were. He said in an interview Kirkman has to often remind him to veer away some times.

Terminus

Hershel/Farm

Governor/Prison/Woodbury

War Arc

Terminus was NOT in the comics.

I liked the Governor/Prison arc in the comic probably 2nd best, but it was definitely better in the comic than the show.

All Out War was just super epic. And it totally changed the comic, I don't want spoil anything, but there is definitely a before/after with that arc.

Everything else blends in as pretty good.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[packersfan]

They'll cut off some zombie heads next week and everything will be right as rain

That's what I don't understand about the "this was boring, I want action...non-stop action" complaint. Action in this series is mostly walkers meander towards person, person shoots them in the head, sticks a knife in their head, whacks their head off, etc. Or they're a redshirt and they get eaten. Only so much of that I can take. Lack of a decent story made me want to quit some time back but it's definitely improved.

There isn't one post that claimed the bold about this episode. Not sure what makes you guys think this as there were multiple zombies and three humans that got killed during the episode. The two major complaints that I see are:

1- Why did it take 90 minutes to complete the Morgan episode when everyone is waiting to find out what happened to Glenn.

Again, I'm guessing we'll find that out real soon, possibly in the next episode. Gimple's been playing with time juxtaposition the entire season and it seems clear he wants to establish who Morgan is and why he's doing what he's doing now to set up what's coming next. The last shot of the episode was him reacting to whoever is calling about the gate so it's logical to assume we'll see that coming up right away in the next episode. And if someone is yelling about the gate it's likely that ties into what's been going on outside the gate which directly ties into what did or didn't happen to Glenn.

Say what you want about this show but if something is posed an answer is provided. People may not like the answers but the answers are there. So I think it's safe to assume Morgan's story being placed into the storyline now was done for a reason and that reason will be provided. On The Talking Dead Lennie James talked about how his episode wasn't shot in sequence and nobody knew what it would be about. There's a clear level of importance that was placed on it so I think we can safely assume its placement in the episode order was done for a reason.

 

[zoonation]

They'll cut off some zombie heads next week and everything will be right as rain

That's what I don't understand about the "this was boring, I want action...non-stop action" complaint. Action in this series is mostly walkers meander towards person, person shoots them in the head, sticks a knife in their head, whacks their head off, etc. Or they're a redshirt and they get eaten. Only so much of that I can take. Lack of a decent story made me want to quit some time back but it's definitely improved.

i agree that good writing and character development should be mixed in with the gore to create a really strong show. The problem is, the writing on this show is sub par at best and laughably bad at worst. Mad Men it most certainly is not.

So, when you combine that fact with a 90 minute show to develop a week story arc for a fringe character, the results are what we were forced to watch on Sunday. By today's standards of good tv drama, that was terrible.

I watch the show and enjoy it. But a spade needs to be called a spade.

 

[3C's]

They'll cut off some zombie heads next week and everything will be right as rain

That's what I don't understand about the "this was boring, I want action...non-stop action" complaint. Action in this series is mostly walkers meander towards person, person shoots them in the head, sticks a knife in their head, whacks their head off, etc. Or they're a redshirt and they get eaten. Only so much of that I can take. Lack of a decent story made me want to quit some time back but it's definitely improved.

There isn't one post that claimed the bold about this episode. Not sure what makes you guys think this as there were multiple zombies and three humans that got killed during the episode. The two major complaints that I see are:

1- Why did it take 90 minutes to complete the Morgan episode when everyone is waiting to find out what happened to Glenn.

2- They screwed up the story/lazy writing again by letting Aikido Master Eastman get bit by a brain dead zombie.

Horrible episode. What were they thinking here?

Huh? Great episode. Good grief people, you think every episode has to be fist of fury. Great acting by Lenny James and John Carroll Lynch. I love it when one or two actors can carry an entire show. It was a good time for this type of episode.

Meh, no offense but many people like me want every episode to be fist of fury. That's A-Team generation. You want the backstory on B.A. Barracus? He won't fly, drinks milk and kicks ###. That's all the back story I want or need.

That is what I was talking about when Kirkman said he was going to work in some more love stories. If this were a movie theater half the people there went to see a action movie and half went to see a drama.

I don't want episodes with farming, kissing, or in this case making cheese. I want head bashing AK 47 through the wall smokers getting chopped up every episode.

That being said the episode was "ok" the Morgan backstory of his insanity was needed. Eastman death was lame and the episode dragged in many parts.

I was totally distracted by the cell in the cabin. It was hard to focus until they answered that question. Why is there a cell? Why is there a cell? Why is there a cell?

Also if Eastman was in his cabin and missed the outbreak and has not had contact with anyone, how did he know bites were fatal? His complete disregard for a open wound and eagerness to blow his own head off were puzzling.

If not that, pretty damn close.