Doesn't anyone want to see.......

[ProfessorChaos]

yeah, axel's death was shocking and totally unexpected. the episode where lori and t-dog bit the dust was also out of nowhere and very impactful as well. we need more of that, and less of these episodes like dale's last day of getting on everybody's nerves before he was killed by a ninja walker, or an entire season of andrea's dipshittery before her overly-dramatic and silly death. no need for a character to get a special-send off episode. in real life, folks die in car crashes, freak-accidents, etc. in war, troops are sniped, torn apart by bombs, etc. if this show is set in a world where it's a war of the living versus the dead, there ought to be more unexpected deaths, and not just filler characters like beth's boyfriend zack, (which was the most obvious and blatantly telegraphed death on this show yet), the harry potter look-alike clown who was offering darryl a blowjob in the season opener, or any of the other woodbury citizens with targets on their backs from the moment they stepped off the bus at the end of season 3. somebody falling off a roof or through a floor and impaling themselves on something in a basement would be a great example of just how random death can be, particularly in a post-apocalyptic setting. my top three choices to be put on the chopping block: 1. darryl 2. glenn 3 (and i know it'll never happen, but a guy can dream) kooorrallll how this show feels at times:

[Legion2213]

how this show feels at times: Because if we have to learn about new characters every two episodes, then they get killed, then we have to start over, we'll get pissed off and stop watching (the masses). You need a bit of continuity in these stories, and characters generally drive them and provide said continuity. All my opinion obviously.

[MoonSylver]

Because if we have to learn about new characters every two episodes, then they get killed, then we have to start over, we'll get pissed off and stop watching (the masses). You need a bit of continuity in these stories, and characters generally drive them and provide said continuity. All my opinion obviously. *Nods* It may kinda suck in a "realism & accurate portrayal vs TV drama" sort of way, but there it is. There are going to be certain concessions made for a variety of production reasons, (everything from logistics, technical, budgetary, all the way to dramatic, series structure, etc, etc, etc) when you're making a TV drama, & as you point out, "red shirts" getting killed off while series regulars continue on is, for better AND worse, one of those concessions. Of course they're going to do it every once in a great while to shake things up & keep it somewhat edgy. But not too often.

[facestabber]

Suck my cock bitches! Seriously though, it seems people want Daryl to die simply because he is a popular character and not form the comics...well, I have the first 4 hardback editions of TWD (unread, still) and I say fuck you D-Dog haters. He is one of the best characters in this show, and I will bet you anything that he is the last man standing...because he pulls in viewers and is a top crossbow wielding, redneck character of tracking awesomeness. Daryl is TWD's Boba Fett (the cool EU Boba Fett, not the skunk pussy prequel Fett). Sorry if a few of you Tyreese fanboys are all upset and stuff, but for the first time in my life, I'm going to say "fuck ya'll comics guys" I saw the show first and I like it...and I like it's major characters, and I like like Dayrl...he is a great character. Legion2213 - Founder of the Squeely Wet Knickers Daryl Appreciation Society WAR Legion!!!!!!

[AcesandEights]

Suck my cock bitches! You act like we just ransacked your bedroom and tore down all your Daryl Dixon posters

[Legion2213]

You act like we just ransacked your bedroom and tore down all your Daryl Dixon posters I'd be much more hysterical and outraged if you'd done that... (but the honest to goshness of it is...I do like DD as a character, the show would survive without him, but it would be a pointless killing).

[MinionZombie]

Because if we have to learn about new characters every two episodes, then they get killed, then we have to start over, we'll get pissed off and stop watching (the masses). You need a bit of continuity in these stories, and characters generally drive them and provide said continuity. All my opinion obviously. *Nods* It may kinda suck in a "realism & accurate portrayal vs TV drama" sort of way, but there it is. There are going to be certain concessions made for a variety of production reasons, (everything from logistics, technical, budgetary, all the way to dramatic, series structure, etc, etc, etc) when you're making a TV drama, & as you point out, "red shirts" getting killed off while series regulars continue on is, for better AND worse, one of those concessions. Of course they're going to do it every once in a great while to shake things up & keep it somewhat edgy. But not too often. Well said chaps. Plus, the characterisation effort you'd have to put in to establishing a new character - only to plug them a couple of episodes later - takes away much-needed screen time from the main cast of characters, and the main thrust of the plot. If you go skittering off hither and thither to look at red shirts all the time you'd lose any real sense of season-wide narrative structure ... it'd become an unfocused, patchy, cobbled together mess of pieces, rather than having a coherent set of plotlines for a coherent set of characters for a coherent season-wide story. It's super easy to chuck in a shit load of background characters in the comic - it's just lines on paper - but in a TV show, those are all people that need paying and feeding and sheltering. Contracts, direction, on-set shepharding, the works. The inevitable 'get rid of the backgrounders' moments do irk me - in various shows (e.g. Lost - a show that I love, but there are inherent problems with a plane-load of passengers - it'd be unrealistic to not have them, but in-so-doing, they become a weight around the writers' necks at times) ... you couldn't have the 'prison community' without a range of background folks, but inevitably you've got to thin down your cast to the main players only once more. To us they're bit players and extras, but to the characters, they're friends and comrades. However - look at 4x01 and 4x02 - Zack and Patrick - both introduced as potential new characters, both with clearly defined characteristics, and both killed off by the end of the episode. You can't do that all the time - eventually it becomes a cheap gimmick that's just as likely to annoy the audience as it is to shock them or keep them guessing - but from time-to-time it works. Another example would be the guys Rick & Co met in the bar in season 2. We know exactly what sort of guys these are, but this will just so happen to be those guys' last minutes on this earth. Finally - if folks have made it this far into the zombie apocalypse, they're doing something right when it comes to survival, so I don't want to see cast members dropping like flies. We've lost the vast majority of the season one cast as it is (only Rick, Carl, Daryl, and Carol are left IIRC). Some people are bound to survive for a long, long time - and there has to be a good chance for some people, otherwise what's the point? It'd become like one of the later Saw sequels. The films started by giving the game victims a chance of survival, albeit via horrid means, but they could actually survive those traps. In the later sequels they became fodder and nothing more - there was no chance for them to survive at all - so what's the point? There's nothing and no-one to root for. I'd also prefer character deaths to be more spaced out, to be a more rare event, as the impact would be greater when they do go, and it'd stop us losing side characters before we've had a good enough time with them (e.g. Axel - who was sorely underused in season 3). You act like we just ransacked your bedroom and tore down all your Daryl Dixon posters Respect to Legion, he speaks from the heart. I too am a big fan of Daryl Dixon, but I'm also a big fan of so many of the characters on the show. There's very few, if any, characters that I'm not fond of come to think of it. Different reasons for liking all of them, too. They all offer something different.

[facestabber]

Well said chaps. Plus, the characterisation effort you'd have to put in to establishing a new character - only to plug them a couple of episodes later - takes away much-needed screen time from the main cast of characters, and the main thrust of the plot. If you go skittering off hither and thither to look at red shirts all the time you'd lose any real sense of season-wide narrative structure ... it'd become an unfocused, patchy, cobbled together mess of pieces, rather than having a coherent set of plotlines for a coherent set of characters for a coherent season-wide story. It's super easy to chuck in a shit load of background characters in the comic - it's just lines on paper - but in a TV show, those are all people that need paying and feeding and sheltering. Contracts, direction, on-set shepharding, the works. The inevitable 'get rid of the backgrounders' moments do irk me - in various shows (e.g. Lost - a show that I love, but there are inherent problems with a plane-load of passengers - it'd be unrealistic to not have them, but in-so-doing, they become a weight around the writers' necks at times) ... you couldn't have the 'prison community' without a range of background folks, but inevitably you've got to thin down your cast to the main players only once more. To us they're bit players and extras, but to the characters, they're friends and comrades. However - look at 4x01 and 4x02 - Zack and Patrick - both introduced as potential new characters, both with clearly defined characteristics, and both killed off by the end of the episode. You can't do that all the time - eventually it becomes a cheap gimmick that's just as likely to annoy the audience as it is to shock them or keep them guessing - but from time-to-time it works. Another example would be the guys Rick & Co met in the bar in season 2. We know exactly what sort of guys these are, but this will just so happen to be those guys' last minutes on this earth. Finally - if folks have made it this far into the zombie apocalypse, they're doing something right when it comes to survival, so I don't want to see cast members dropping like flies. We've lost the vast majority of the season one cast as it is (only Rick, Carl, Daryl, and Carol are left IIRC). Some people are bound to survive for a long, long time - and there has to be a good chance for some people, otherwise what's the point? It'd become like one of the later Saw sequels. The films started by giving the game victims a chance of survival, albeit via horrid means, but they could actually survive those traps. In the later sequels they became fodder and nothing more - there was no chance for them to survive at all - so what's the point? There's nothing and no-one to root for. I'd also prefer character deaths to be more spaced out, to be a more rare event, as the impact would be greater when they do go, and it'd stop us losing side characters before we've had a good enough time with them (e.g. Axel - who was sorely underused in season 3). Respect to Legion, he speaks from the heart. I too am a big fan of Daryl Dixon, but I'm also a big fan of so many of the characters on the show. There's very few, if any, characters that I'm not fond of come to think of it. Different reasons for liking all of them, too. They all offer something different. Very solid replies and I have to agree. If I understand the OP correctly he wasnt advocating killing off main characters quickly and cheaply just for the sake of it. But in the interest of keeping it real to the ZA an occasional death out of the blue without a build up would be alright. I actually felt Dale's death was like that. I didnt think they would off him there like they did. There is a difficult balance/medium that the writers must deal with and it can't be easy. I'm not gonna knock the comic fans as I have now attended 3 comic-cons. Quick side note: There are some messed up people at those events. Back to point: I don't get comic books at all. Even as a kid they did not entertain me. I tried reading TWD comics and after 1 read I just put it back in the package and called it a day. The comic crowd is a band of brothers as I have witnessed. It seems they are the biggest proponents of killing Daryl. His ass kicking has detracted from their comic hero's role. Daryl has invaded their territory so it frustrates them. Well fuck ya'll comic nerds.....I kid, seriously. I will admit the trademark crossbow has prevented his character from being practical. It's a cool weapon and all but not worth a shit in a tight jam with multiple targets. My attachment and fandom has more to do with Norman Reedus. Lucky enough to walk into my hotel in Boston(2 or 3 episodes of season 1 had aired) and Reedus was outside smoking. We chatted and I offered to buy him a drink at the bar. Next thing I know I'm doing shots of Irish with Norman Reedus. The guy is as nice and genuine as the come. Humble as hell. So sorry to you comic fans but I will proudly oppose Daryl Dixon's death.

[shootemindehead]

I think a lot of people want Daryl dead because he's essentially a silly character. He's the boy version of Michonne, an equally silly character. They both subtract, terribly, from a realism that all the other characters inject into the story. On one hand we have a moody (albeit less so now) katana wielding nerd wankfest. That's...er...Michonne and on the other a poncho wearing, crossbow slinging, super tracker redneck. Whereas everyone else looks like they could exist, these two are pure bollocks. That said, I don't want to see him gone, just yet. But if he did go, it wouldn't bother me at all. TBH, I'm getting sick of his deadshot crossbow act. Also, I like Michonne better in the show now that they've dropped the "I'm not talking to anyone" nonsense and allowed whatsherface a bit of room to actually act the part. If she traded in her silly katana for a machete, she's be even better.

[MoonSylver]

I think a lot of people want Daryl dead because he's essentially a silly character. He's the boy version of Michonne, an equally silly character. They both subtract, terribly, from a realism that all the other characters inject into the story. On one hand we have a moody (albeit less so now) katana wielding nerd wankfest. That's...er...Michonne and on the other a poncho wearing, crossbow slinging, super tracker redneck. Whereas everyone else looks like they could exist, these two are pure bollocks. That said, I don't want to see him gone, just yet. But if he did go, it wouldn't bother me at all. TBH, I'm getting sick of his deadshot crossbow act. Also, I like Michonne better in the show now that they've dropped the "I'm not talking to anyone" nonsense and allowed whatsherface a bit of room to actually act the part. If she traded in her silly katana for a machete, she's be even better. Hm. Fair enough point, even if I don't totally agree, but I can see some degree of what you're saying. This is just an off-the-cuff thought in response, in that the thought hadn't occurred to me until I read your post, but, maybe there is a portion of the audience that enjoys more "heroic" level characters as opposed to "gritty realism"? By throwing in a DD & Michone you satisfy that urge/fanbase, and still have the opportunity to explore more "realistic" characters & scenarios via the rest of your cast. BTW, I don't think this was a calculated move on their behalf, at least not in the terms of DD. It seems to have been something that evolved organically. The audience responded, either to the character, or to Reedus himself (who I always thought was a likable guy onscreen), & the show responded. Or the producers, writing staff, somebody saw something there they liked, & started beefing up the part. In either case, he started off with a "also starring" credit (like Emily Kenny has now), & is now second billed if I noticed the credits right... Now Michone was already written as such in the comics. Actually now that I think of it, at the point that they're at in the comics, Michone is still kind of sulky & closed. There has been some wonderful acting moments that have evolved on the show between her & Chandler Riggs. Again, I suspect this has been an organic evolution, but a welcome one. No such interaction exists in the comic if I'm not mistaken. (At least not at the point they're at now). I'll even go out on a limb & say that by having a second/male "zombie ass kicker" character on the show, it has taken some of the burden of being that character off of the Michone character? By having two of them, you can bounce back & forth & develop them as characters & still have the other doing "zombie ass kickery" type stuff, with out risking the perception that either is "going soft". It's kind of a balancing act, IMO, trying to service different audiences all within the same show. You've got character driven drama fans, survival/simulation buffs, folks that prefer more action, & horror/gore hounds, and then some who enjoy ALL of those aspects, to one degree or another (which is probably where I would consider myself). So, it seems like you try to throw in different elements that please those different members of your audience, without trying to alienate the others. So far I think they're doing a fine job of it. Sometimes they may go a little too much one way or the other, but that's the nature of a balancing act I suppose. But at the end of the day it has all evened out nicely thus far, so I'm happy. Anyway, hadn't intended on going on this long. Saturday morning having the coffee & posting on the internet ramble.

[MinionZombie]

Good points Moon, plus characters like Daryl and Michonne help balance the show out so it doesn't become some unremittingly bleak tale of loss and woe. You need a character or two who, even though they have their own drama to contend with, can kick arse and take names. It adds an element of empowerment for the viewers at large ... for example, there was a lot of negative reaction to Skylar White on Breaking Bad, and the show makers discovered quite to their surprise, that it was ultimately because she was seen as a 'helpless' character that big chunks of the audience disliked her. Likewise, with such horrors and bastards populating much of the zombie apocalypse world, you need to have a couple of capable hands to bring a sense of balance and justice. Otherwise it'd just be horrible things happening to good people who can't fight back against the dark. Also, extending a point I made earlier, you can't get to this point in TWD without being someone adept at surviving in this world. Sometimes it might be a case of having good comrades (e.g. Eugene, and how Beth used to be) and sometimes it might be a case of being a survivalist (e.g. Daryl) or a dogged pragmatist (e.g. Michonne) or someone who is, for whatever reasons, just a born survivor (e.g. Rick).

[facestabber]

Well said Moon. Nothing wrong with coffee fueled rants.

[AcesandEights]

He's a good character, he's had his various arcs, he's troped it up hardcore, but making him bulletproof just because he's a fan favorite is a losing proposition. It's kind of a balancing act, IMO, trying to service different audiences all within the same show. I'll bow to your superior wisdom on this subject, Moon, as I know you have shedloads of experience in servicing folks.

[MoonSylver]

Well said Moon. Nothing wrong with coffee fueled rants. I get more done before 12pm than I get done the rest of the day. I'll bow to your superior wisdom on this subject, Moon, as I know you have shedloads of experience in servicing folks. Don't be hatin' just because I've been laid more than a brickyard.

[AcesandEights]

Don't be hatin' just because I've been laid more than a brickyard.