TWD 3x15 "This Sorrowful Life" episode discussion...**SPOILERS WITHIN**

[babomb]

Everybody wants their favorite character, or well liked characters for the most part, to have deaths that to some degree are equal to their perception of that characters worth in the show. This is understandable. I guess the problem I have is that I don't have a favorite character. I don't really identify with, or to be honest, really care about any specific character enough to feel that their death needs to be done any specific way in order to do that character justice. The motivating factor for me in watching the show is to see the world they're surviving in, that's in a sense the character I care about. So there's no fear in having that "character" die off anytime soon. The downfall of this is that the character I care about then is pretty lean on appearances lately. That's why 3x01 and "Clear" are the only 2 episodes I really cared much about this season. There's been elements within several other episodes that have been rewarding. This has basically been the basis of my nitpicks. I don't watch the show because I think it's a compelling character driven drama that has exceptionally well developed characters that i care about. Although it may be that, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just a person that's stimulated and captivated by ideas, not people or interpersonal events. What's driving my interest at this point is the idea of the war that's looming. Who dies or survives as a result of that war is, to me, not the substance of things hoped for. I'm eagerly wanting to see how the war itself plays out in regard to what sort of ways the prison group may or may not come up with to cope with woodbury's forces. And what ideas and concepts will emerge as the substance of what season 4 will ultimately become. The pitfall is that I'm fully aware that those aspects that interest me the most will always take a backseat to the aspects I could really care less about.

[krisvds]

E I don't really identify with, or to be honest, really care about any specific character enough to feel that their death needs to be done any specific way in order to do that character justice. The motivating factor for me in watching the show is to see the world they're surviving in, that's in a sense the character I care about. So there's no fear in having that "character" die off anytime soon. The downfall of this is that the character I care about then is pretty lean on appearances lately. That's why 3x01 and "Clear" are the only 2 episodes I really cared much about this season. There's been elements within several other episodes that have been rewarding. This has basically been the basis of my nitpicks. I don't watch the show because I think it's a compelling character driven drama that has exceptionally well developed characters that i care about. Although it may be that, I'm not saying it isn't. Yep. Could not have said it better. The show tries to be this character driven drama but the poor writing and often laughable characterisation have really let the series down this season. / moan. Fingers crossed for a cool finale and a turnaround come next season.

[MinionZombie]

I actually agree with MZ about something. God, I think I hear the 1st Seal of the Apocalypse breaking. However "real" it might be for main characters to die hapless deaths, that isn't FUN for the MAJORITY of viewers. End of the day, TV shows are basically democracy-by-prediction. If the show developers correctly anticipate and deliver what the majority of the audience wants, the show succeeds. If they try and take some sort of artistic integrity-based position and do it their way with no thought to how the viewers will react to it, the show fails, no matter how much a small minority of viewers might respect the hell outta it. 2% of Viewers absolutely adoring incorruptible artistic integrity has never, and WILL NEVER trump 98% of viewers looking for a fun 60 mins of TV per week. I mean, you even say "formulaic TV style" like that's a profane phrase. Guess what? It IS TV! Kept on the air not by we 20% of the viewer-share zombie fanatic fans, but by the 80% of people who could take or leave Romero's work who for whatever reason have decided they like watching TWD every Sunday there's a new episode. Which makes more sense, write to please the 20% die-hards, or write to please the 80% expecting simple "good formulaic TV"? Remembering that at the end of the day, for every last person with TRUE control over this show's existence, TWD exists for no other reason than to provide a desirable 48 minute window that will make the commercial spots worth a lot to sell. #1 ... *faints* #2 ... I wouldn't go so far as to say that TWD is being governed blindly by a 'popular vote'. They keep tabs on what the viewer response is - any responsible showrunners would do exactly that - because sometimes the creative/artistic people can end up being swallowed by their own arses if they just swan off in whatever direction their inflating egos might push them ... as with all things, moderation is the key, and I'd say TWD has a pretty good handle on being moderate in doing what they want to do with the show, and listening to fans when they're raising appropriate and legitimate concerns/wants. A balance has to be struck, and frankly some of the most fervent corners of the fanbase shouldn't be listened to - just like political extremists in the real world in terms of governing a country - but there is also a different between an extremist (e.g. the idiot subset of Daryl fans who take it way too far who send death threats to Laurie Holden) and a nerd (such as us folks), just like you have political nerds who raise detailed and considered analyses of particular issues. At the same time, if you pay too much attention to the 'popular vote', you then end up with a messy product and you lose sight of what you're actually doing. In the end, there's so many differing opinions floating around that they naturally don't pay that much attention to them - just the legitimate concerns that are raised on a more regular basis (the issues that float to the top of the general rabble rabble rabble of the viewership). The actors have said this in the past too - recently Steven Yeun said that he just stopped going to any forums or whatnot online to read about the show because it was just a rammy of extreme opinions - various forms of extremely vocal minorities - that old chestnut of the noise being decidedly out of proportion to the number of mouths yammering away. So, in short, I reckon the TWD makers are doing a good job of maintaining a balance in the rocky seas of viewership opinion. One thing is for sure - far better to have a vocal fanbase, then a fanbase that doesn't give a shit. Great fecking episode, goodbye merle you will be missed. I swear us zombie fans will nitpick this show to death lol I do feel sometimes that we're awfully spoiled with TWD, and that some folks out there in the webtubes could ease back a touch to recognise just how lucky we are to have TWD. Jeebus, Wyld! The one time you recant on your trademark TWD picayunery, is when I need you the most. It's a classic stab in the back! Haha, you guys are awesome. I agree with MZ but I totally understand where the others are coming from considering the source material. My biggest gripe with how characters are killed off in the show is you can tell off the bat they are gonna die by how much attention they suddenly get in the episode. Now yeah, for example with Axel - we hadn't had much from him throughout the previous episodes, and then we got a good amount of time with him - then we all know what happened. That approach has in itself become a meme "get character development = death" ... so they could tweak that in season 4. Make sure you've covered a character that is going to snuff it in previous episodes, and then at the appropriate time in the pacing of the individual episode (in which they die) snuff them out. There is an element of pacing that is involved, and it has to work correctly in the flow of the episode - if the episode is going to be all about the fallout from someone's death, then you could cover their character sufficiently in earlier episodes, and then snuff them out in the opening teaser (or first ten minutes), and then have the fallout. However, if the intention of the episode's plot isn't to do with the fallout of the death, and that the death is instead a big old FULL STOP to a particular narrative, then naturally it has to come near/at the end of the episode. On the other hand you can have, say in the instance of Lori, have her death come late in the episode (because there's so much other crazy shit going on that it's the natural point for that event anyway), and then have the fallout of her death affect Rick over several episodes - particularly 3x05 - in that instance you've got so much to decompress and debrief from that you do need an entire episode to just take a breath and assess what the hell just happened. Similarly 3x09 has a lot of business to deal with - if you've been wrapped up in a lot of action, then you need to balance it back out with some business afterwards. Actually 3x09 and 3x10 are interesting examples of pacing - 3x09 takes place seconds after 3x08 ended, so the action is up front - but then with Merle joining the group, and the Dixon brothers splitting off, and everyone else heading back to the prison, there's a lot of business that needs taking care of. Then in the case of 3x10, it's the more traditional pacing of building up to a crescendo (when The Governor attacks Woodbury). In both cases however, it makes sense for the overall story of the season and the individual plots of the episodes. ... I've gone and got lost down a rabbit hole of screenwriter talk, such as I'm prone to do ... and it's lunch time, so I'm off for a bit of grub. *EDIT* Forgot to mention, I watched the episode again last night on Fox UK, and I actually did see other tyre bursting obstacles had been laid out - it's just that we never got a good enough shot to show them more closely. It was only when I was specifically looking for them in a single wide shot, that I actually saw them. So I was wide-of-the-mark on that one.

[babomb]

I do feel sometimes that we're awfully spoiled with TWD, and that some folks out there in the webtubes could ease back a touch to recognise just how lucky we are to have TWD I see your point. I just don't see it that way. TV shows are products, and viewers are consumers of that product. I think expectations of products drive the makers of the product to release a quality product. If people backed off and just considered themselves lucky to have it at all, that sets the stage for poor quality control. Then the product stops trying to live up to expectation and drifts into mediocrity in favor of cheaper manufacturing and low cost labor. The consumer stops being a priority and it becomes all about profit.

[MinionZombie]

I never said back off entirely - I said "ease back a touch" - I remember when TWD started and numerous people were saying that it was the best thing to happen in zombies since Day of the Dead (and it still is), which says an awful lot about the general state of the genre.