Interesting take on TWD.

[babomb]

http://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/reaso...d-doesnt-work/ When the zombie apocalypse is presented with such realism, it’s jarring and irritating to see people acting like they’re in a bad Lifetime movie.

[MinionZombie]

Sorry, but that's a pretty shonkily written article - a lot of 'I don't know what's wrong, but something's wrong' with no further explanation, as well as personal subjective responses to certain characters (one of the great things about TWD is that different people like different characters for different reasons) ... the writer shows themselves up by complaining about the show moving away from the comics when they themselves state they've never actually read the comics! There are certainly problems with the show - but every single show on TV has problems - perfection is impossible. Complaining about Dave (2x08 "Nebraska") only being in a single episode is just daft - they're clearly bad guys, Rick makes a snap decision to snuff Dave and Tony immediately for the sake of the group, then straight after D&T's gang come looking for them - cue a stand off and a battle - and then Randall gets injured - cue the remainder of the season's arc driven forward by these events, and the burgeoning conflict between Rick & Shane. I don't understand this criticism of 'soap opera acting' either - 2x11 was one of the best episodes of season 2 (where Dale pleads for old world humanity lest we lose our purpose for survival), but from this writer's complaints it doesn't sound like he enjoys any of the talky bits. Without the character stuff there would be no meaning to anything - it'd just be a videogame, 43 minutes of headshots and nothing else. This isn't to say the acting is universally flawless - it ain't - but then what show has that? Even Breaking Bad will have moments of iffy acting/writing somewhere in the mix. Mad Men is rightly held up as a great show - but it routinely starts down an avenue for an interesting side story before abandoning it soon after, as well as ignoring supporting characters almost entirely (Ken Cosgrove barely got a look-in during season 6, for example) - and yet it's still a great show because, like with TWD, it's successes greatly out-number it's failures. Lest anyone ignore everything I've said about the show over the years, there have most definitely been problems, such as: Season 1 - instances of walkers moving too fast (and even climbing fences in 1x02) - this has since been fixed. Season 2 - budget problems, hence being stuck on the farm in 2x02 through 2x07 too much. The search for Sophia became way too overlong on a week-by-week basis, but on DVD boxset it plays out better (those episodes are essentially 5-6 days). Season 3 - Andrea's arc wasn't as good as it could have been. Some stuff I really liked, such as the lure of a society akin to what we had before, and finding some place to live for, rather than just surviving on scraps in the wilderness going from place to place, but at times her decision making wasn't telegraphed to the viewer as well as it could have been by the writers. When explained by the showrunners and the actors, the decisions make sense - or more sense - but failing to get some of these points across on-screen was a failing of those scripts at times. Pacing - we've said a lot already about the back-half of season 3 where the pace was all over the place - also, and particularly after watching 3x04 again last night, "Killer Within" is a good example of dodgy pacing within an episode. It works to begin with, but as soon as the shit hits the fan at the prison, cutting away to the sedate suspicions and gentle chats at Woodbury (all stuff that moves the plot forward, yes) doesn't work. It probably works better with a 5 minute advert break in-between, but on boxset and without adverts you are raised up to a point of stress and then you're dropped off a cliff (3 or 4 times throughout the episode). T-Dog's death doesn't have enough time to fully land, and the last Woodbury scene is so brief that it feels like a poke in the eye right smack in the middle of Lori's problematic birth. However, in spite of the pacing issues with 3x04, that episode remains one of the strongest of the entire season. Straying from the path - season 3 definitely went too far from the path of the comics. There's no doubt a range of reasons for this - but it's good to hear that Gimple has been using much more from the comics for season 4 - again, an example of the showrunners being critical of their own work and listening to fans. We're yet to see the results, but the fact that they've stated that several times in the intervening months (and past examples of fixing problems) shows that they listen to their fans between seasons (you can't do it during a season as the viewer response is always so long after the scripts have been written, and decidedly after the shows have been edited). Season 2 lacks action and budget? Boom - 2x13 and the damn-near the whole of season 3. Ultimately, I feel that TWD is written from an emotional place, rather than cold logic and hindsight - emotions are messy, and people always make bad decisions on the spur of the moment and then have to deal with them - in the world of TWD you often don't have the time to make a reasoned argument (although 2x11 is an exception) for or against something. It's often about instinct and survival and harsh practicality. I could go on and on and on, but I've said plenty as it is. Every single show on TV right now, and in the past, has had problems, some big and some small, so TWD is no exception. Some of the criticism is well placed, and some is overly harsh and unrealistic expectations ... ... and circling back to the posted article itself, that's a mere handful of ill-explained opinions dressed up as supposed facts. Christ, I do rabbit on, don't I?

[shootemindehead]

There's not a lot in the article that hasn't been discussed on here really. But, I'd agree with the "too much straying from the comic = weak" argument. Although, unlike the writer, I have read the comic and can say for certain that compared with the comic's writing/storyline, the TV show has been very poor at times. Character wise, there's a lot of problems. Andrea was bloody awful in the show and pretty good in the comic, but there was a sigh of relief when she finally got whacked. The useless token black characters were terrible. The "we can't have Morgan, but here's a couple of black faces, so shut up" is a rubbish path, especially when there are strong black templates from the comic to choose from. T-Dawg was crap and that unnamable woman from the first series was instantly forgettable and were literally just there to fill a bogus racial quota. I really hope that the writing is seriously upped for the next series, which, in fairness, I am looking forward to. But, I am often left wondering is that because it's a zombie show, or because it's a good show?

[AcesandEights]

Andrea was bloody awful in the show and pretty good in the comic, but there was a sigh of relief when she finally got whacked. Wow, what does it say about the show that I totally forgot they even killed her off?! Well, maybe it says I have early onset alzheimers, but more likely it says I wasn't invested enough to remember or care after my initial viewing of the finale.

[facestabber]

Dang Minion you dont leave me much to add. Very well said. TWD isnt perfect. It would be to me if I was calling the shots though The comics are a great source material and rightfully so. I know I am a minority though when it comes to what I say next. I tried reading the comics and I just cant get into it. Now Ive never been a comic guy. Even as a kid I'd rather watch Spiderman on tv than the format delivered in comics. Maybe this is why I dont have the attachment that comic faithfuls have with how the actors portray the comic equivelant. No judgement on my part. I think its just easier for me to enjoy the show because I dont feel betrayed. And I'm not sure if I am the minority on my feeling that I enjoyed season 2 more than season 3. Even with what seemed like the endless search for Sophia slowed it down the mid season finally had a great payoff IMO. And I gotta say I miss what Dale and Shane brought to the show. I didnt agree with Shane much but that character was great for the show. I hope that Season 4 gives us great story and new scenery and not bow down to the 'new found zombie fans'. Most of us on this sight started with the greatness of Romero and have alot more invested in the zombie genre and I much prefer TWD cater to us.

[MinionZombie]

Facestabber - hehe, like I said, I do tend to blether on a bit. I'm of a faithful disposition - particularly with Nicotero having all his fingers shoved firmly into the gruesome pie; he was brought up under the wings of horror icons like Romero and Raimi and Rodriguez etc. Re-watching season two recently (as part of my 1-3 marathon ahead of S4), I did have a very fond feeling for it. I think S2 was overall more consistent than S3, inspite of front-half issues, and the whole Rick/Shane thing dominates the season and pays off in such a satisfying way. It's a shame that the Andrea arc for S3 didn't have the same consistency and epic payoff, but at the same time I certainly don't write off the entire Andrea arc - no way, no how - for the most part I dug it, and to me at least, the Andrea of the comic is usually rather forthright with her opinions and prone to rushing to fight rather than necessarily think things through. In terms of 'soap opera elements', the comic really was more guilty of that sort of thing in the early volumes - lots of people hooking up as if it was high school, and the single ones complaining that "everyone's partnered up" - indeed, the dialogue was full of exposition in the initial volumes ... but Kirkman's definitely improved his dialogue quite a lot over the years, particularly after working on scripts for TWD. I do love how the show has been able to explore additional territory that the comic wasn't able to/didn't explore - e.g. Shane's arc is much richer in the show, and it was a wise idea to not have The Governor fully formed from the get-go ... indeed, S3 was very much a Rick/Governor face-off in terms of how one approaches the same sorts of problems the zombie apocalypse world presents. This even plays into Carl's arc during S3. Over all I think S3 was the point where TWD hit the big leagues - even though the show was doing increasingly well over the first two seasons, it's season three where it enters the big leagues of established shows. You see the online reaction getting bigger, you see the show permeating popular culture more and more and more - from parodies on mainstream television, to things like Lauren Cohan appearing in Maxim. TWD became a leviathon with S3, and with an extended episode order, they were undoubtedly going to encounter some problems along the way. The overall story, too, is far more open to numerous avenues of exploration rather than, say, Breaking Bad, which is a far more focused show (the timeframe of all five seasons is, what, two years?) and doesn't have to explore certain territory that supernatural elements bring up, so - in some ways - it's arguably easier to wrangle. Indeed, Breaking Bad wasn't based on a well-established comic book either - and that's a big weight to have on the shoulders when it comes to adapting the stories for TV in the case of TWD. With what I'm hearing about Gimple's approach to the show, tweaking the course of the show, and with them now having experience of the 16 episode TWD season format of 8-and-8, I'm very much looking forward to seeing what they've got in store for us, and I have faith that it'll be very good indeed. I think there are valuable lessons to learn from S3 - for good and bad - and the showrunners are the sort of people who pay attention to areas where they can improve. You can see the love they have for this show, and for the people they work with, that they're not about to just write it off with lazy efforts - it's not an impersonal sort of show, and the fanbase is rabid for this one, so they'll be keenly aware of what the fans think - for good and bad - of their work, and will, within their own reasoning, take that into account.

[krisvds]

I really hope that the writing is seriously upped for the next series, which, in fairness, I am looking forward to. But, I am often left wondering is that because it's a zombie show, or because it's a good show? Indeed! I often feel I'd have given up watching it altogether if it hadn't featured the walking dead... it was a wise idea to not have The Governor fully formed from the get-go ... indeed, S3 was very much a Rick/Governor face-off in terms of how one approaches the same sorts of problems the zombie apocalypse world presents. Seriously? While the governor in the comics was way over the top what we got in S3 was hardly any better. He was never fully formed IMO. I couldn't buy his descent into violent madness.

[babomb]

Sorry, but that's a pretty shonkily written article - a lot of 'I don't know what's wrong, but something's wrong' with no further explanation, as well as personal subjective responses to certain characters (one of the great things about TWD is that different people like different characters for different reasons) ... the writer shows themselves up by complaining about the show moving away from the comics when they themselves state they've never actually read the comics! I don't agree with everything the writer says either. But he doesn't exactly complain that the show doesn't follow the comic. He says: I haven’t read any of the Walking Dead comics. Maybe I’d be over the moon for the show if I had. I get the sense, however, that the show isn’t as good as the comic, so perhaps if I was familiar with it I’d be even more pissed at the show for not being as good as it could be. Based on my (very) superficial understanding of the comic, the characters are more fully formed, less watered down, and more believable. Andrea actually makes sense as a person, there aren’t black characters named “T-Dog” where the T could stand for “token,” and the Governor is actually menacing instead of cartoony (ironically enough). For someone who hasn't actually read the comic, this is pretty spot on. I've read many of the comics, and I totally agree with this guy that the characters are much more fully formed and less watered down. Andrea from the comic is actually a great character, and there's no T-Dog. Not that T-Dog was as bad a character as Andrea, but he was surely a token black guy. Complaining about Dave (2x08 "Nebraska") only being in a single episode is just daft - they're clearly bad guys, Rick makes a snap decision to snuff Dave and Tony immediately for the sake of the group, then straight after D&T's gang come looking for them - cue a stand off and a battle - and then Randall gets injured - cue the remainder of the season's arc driven forward by these events, and the burgeoning conflict between Rick & Shane. I guess i just interpret his criticism differently. To me it sounds like he's saying that the actor who played Dave could've contributed more if the character had been allowed to I don't understand this criticism of 'soap opera acting' either - 2x11 was one of the best episodes of season 2 (where Dale pleads for old world humanity lest we lose our purpose for survival), but from this writer's complaints it doesn't sound like he enjoys any of the talky bits. Without the character stuff there would be no meaning to anything - it'd just be a videogame, 43 minutes of headshots and nothing else. I certainly understand the criticism of the soap opera acting. TWD has drama by nature, but I consistently find myself feeling that they're taking it too far. You can create drama and develop character without being SO TALKY. I disagree with your idea that it can only be as it is(with so much talk) or void of any character development and 43 minutes of headshots. There's an ocean of space between those 2 extremes that could be used for character development. I myself am not appeased with the death scenes, walkers, FX and gore. Not to say I don't like those things or that I want less of them. But if there were less of them and more well crafted dramatic aspects that don't rely almost exclusively on soapy dialog, I'd be perfectly fine with it. I would be very annoyed, much more so than I am with the soapy aspects, if the show were made up of all headshots and gore. An episode that to me illustrates what I'm saying is 18 Miles Out. It combines action, drama(including some talky parts), walkers and gore. But one thing it has that isn't explored enough in the bulk of the series is dramatic and meaningful imagery. The pilot and "Clear" also seem to strike the right balance of all these aspects. I realize it's unrealistic to expect every episode to be as well done as these 3, but episodes like those seem to more of the exception. They're few and far between. Even if only 4-5 episodes each season got close to the quality of those episodes, it would make all the other less appealing aspects and episodes more worthwhile. I could go on and on and on, but I've said plenty as it is. Every single show on TV right now, and in the past, has had problems, some big and some small, so TWD is no exception. Some of the criticism is well placed, and some is overly harsh and unrealistic expectations ... ... and circling back to the posted article itself, that's a mere handful of ill-explained opinions dressed up as supposed facts. Maybe you kind of took offense to some of the things that the article said? Because i thought the entire article was opinion. The writer attempts to explain his reasons for his opinions, and maybe he doesn't do as good of a job as he could/should. I just know that I agree with some of the things he says, and have thought those things for some time and have expressed those things before. I'm not that concerned with how well he explains his own opinions since i have my own explanations for my opinions. But never once did I interpret anything the writer says to be supposed facts. To me it read as 5 reasons that the writer thinks the show could be better. Which would be inherently opinion based.

[MinionZombie]

I love The Walking Dead, but I'm also aware of problems it currently has (which I have faith will be addressed) and problems it did have in previous seasons (which were subsequently fixed), but at the same time I'm not going to allow a minority of shifting problems ruin an otherwise excellent show. I've spoken numerous times, in numerous threads, about areas that needed to be better, or require work over a longer period of time, but it'd be a real shame to allow appropriate and considered criticisms to become an over-riding focus that blots out everything they get right with the show. I just take issue with the article itself - it assumes a bold stance, but does little to back up it's viewpoint - and I'm certainly not alone in that assessment of the article, as the comment feed beneath it illustrates. It's an incomplete article that feels decidedly ill-researched and poorly argued. If the writer is going to state areas that they think the show needs to do better in, then they need to write a much better article than this, because it fails to make strong arguments backed up by a fair and objective analysis of the show. ... On Dave in 2x08 "Nebraska" - the actor was very good, but the character was always going to be a guest spot for a single episode - the character was never intended to go further than that for the reasons I laid out previously. You could take any single-episode guest star character in any show (e.g. Robert Forster turning up in Breaking Bad for a single episode) and see potential storylines for them beyond what they get, but then you're going into entirely different territory that extends beyond the main thread of the entire season, if not the entire show, you start going beyond what you're intending to do. Randall fulfills the possibility of what Dave could have become to the story. Personally, I didn't find much fault in the TV show version of The Governor and his evolution - you're cutting your legs off at the knees by not showing him change over time, and it made total sense to me that he'd go off the deep end once his one last thread of connection to the old world (Penny, albeit as a walker) was snuffed out. It's just a shame that they were suggesting (for several episodes) all-out-war for the finale, when the season finale was more about emotional resolution for Rick (which I rather liked - the end of the Ricktatorship, softening his distrust of all strangers, accepting outside help when it's offered, coming to terms with the death of Lori etc) ... but it was foolish of the showrunners to lead the audience to expect a massive ruck in the last episode, particularly when the lead-up to it was so protracted. There's absolutely criticisms that can be levelled at the show - most definitely - but sometimes I do think some folks out there, both here on HPOTD and in the wider viewership, make their criticisms unduly and overly harsh ... but that's just how I personally feel. To each their own, but sometimes the extent of the criticism just baffles me (such as in the article linked to in this thread).

[Moon Knight]

Nothing new.

[babomb]

There's absolutely criticisms that can be levelled at the show - most definitely - but sometimes I do think some folks out there, both here on HPOTD and in the wider viewership, make their criticisms unduly and overly harsh ... but that's just how I personally feel. To each their own, but sometimes the extent of the criticism just baffles me (such as in the article linked to in this thread). The harsh criticism doesn't start at the drop of a hat. It's not immediate upon the 1st problem or bad choice made by the writers. It's a slow buildup. It's kind of like if you have a real good friend that develops a bad attitude. He doesn't start out horrible, but left unchecked it gets worse over time. And you don't immediately decide to limit your association with him because he makes a few comments. But once it starts to happen everytime you're around him, that becomes what he has to offer. You don't want to have to stop being around him, you really just want your old friend back. At this point, most people that level criticisms against the show are hoping that it was just "going through some things" last season and will return to being the show we used to know and love. I don't think people who watch the show have it out for the show and just want to go around bashing it. People honestly feel let down by some aspects of the show, and they talk about it. It seems like there's just enough right about the show to keep people watching, but plenty wrong to keep people feeling like there's something to be desired. I'm completely looking forward to season 4. Even if it has the same problems as last season. I'll still watch it. But I'll still give criticisms too. And they'll be informal and honest criticisms according to what I think. They might fail to make strong arguments backed up by a fair and objective analysis of the show, but they'll be honest according to my own opinions.

[facestabber]

Just rewatched 03-04 and damn the pacing was worse than I remember. Shit was hitting the fan and I didn't give a shit about Andrea and Merle reading a map. That being said I still believe some of the best acting of the series was done by Cohan, Callies, Riggs and Lincoln. Especially Cohans IMO. Horribly paced but great acting. Hopefully the pace will be better balanced now that the Woodbury arc is done.

[MinionZombie]

Just rewatched 03-04 and damn the pacing was worse than I remember. Shit was hitting the fan and I didn't give a shit about Andrea and Merle reading a map. That being said I still believe some of the best acting of the series was done by Cohan, Callies, Riggs and Lincoln. Especially Cohans IMO. Horribly paced but great acting. Hopefully the pace will be better balanced now that the Woodbury arc is done. I think episode 3 worked fine as it was purely focused on Woodbury, but yeah, the pacing of episode 4 is pish at times. The cutaways to Woobury would have worked if the intensity of the story there matched the escalating insanity of what was going on at the prison, but it didn't match whatsoever. So it's literally: However, absolutely, in spite of the pacing issues, 3x04 is one of the best episodes - the acting is incredible in those final moments particularly, and even watching it a third time it still gets to me. Powerful stuff. As for season four, by the sounds of it the pacing should be different. I've read multiple interviews, and in addition to bringing it back closer to the comics, it sounds like they've improved the pacing overall. Ooh, I can't wait for the season four premiere!!!

[babomb]

MZ, I gotta admit, you'd win the award for biggest fan of TWD, hands down. I don't think there's ANYTHING that could turn you against it. Even if they turned it into a reality contest show, and brought in Paris Hilton for the starring role.

[MinionZombie]

I don't think there's ANYTHING that could turn you against it. Even if they turned it into a reality contest show, and brought in Paris Hilton for the starring role. 1) If that happened, I'd know the world was ending, and I'd stop watching. 2) I definitely have faults with the show, but the faults shift and change as the show continues to grow and evolve. A problem in one season will be fixed come the next season, but a new problem might emerge. Despite the faults, for me the positives far outweigh the negatives, and as they've proven before, they're up to the task of fixing their past mistakes. 3) It is true. I absolutely adore TWD ... but when it does slip up in places, I do notice and consider it a shame, but I also notice when they do better next time. I like to keep things positive and in perspective, especially considering the sheer juggernaut nature of a show such as TWD in terms of a production etc. 4) There's no such thing as perfection. You can get near it, though.