- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "The Walking Dead" is absurd thread
Posted on 2/14/12 at 5:46 pm to Baloo
Posted on 2/14/12 at 5:46 pm to Baloo
quote:
I think what irritates me about the "pace" argument is that I think the show has turned the pacing problems into a virtue over the past two episodes. You had to agree with Shane's meltdown on some level, and that required them simply wasting time (not that they don't have all of the time in the world).
Boom. And since when does a character have to be "likeable," at least in the presence of good. Shane is a great character. The show doesn't celebrate Shane, but it's fun to watch him exist in that kind of environment.
quote:
Then, the person arguing against "pace" then complains about character and dialogue. Fine. I agree with those arguments, but poor characterization is not a pacing problem. It's a poor characterization problem. All of the arguments against pace seem to back down at the first signs of critical resistance and fall back on poor character. Fine. but make THAT your argument, not pacing. The issue is not pace.
This.
2
Posted on 2/14/12 at 5:49 pm to Baloo
quote:
I think what irritates me about the "pace" argument is that I think the show has turned the pacing problems into a virtue over the past two episodes. You had to agree with Shane's meltdown on some level, and that required them simply wasting time (not that they don't have all of the time in the world).
Then, the person arguing against "pace" then complains about character and dialogue. Fine. I agree with those arguments, but poor characterization is not a pacing problem. It's a poor characterization problem. All of the arguments against pace seem to back down at the first signs of critical resistance and fall back on poor character. Fine. but make THAT your argument, not pacing. The issue is not pace.
I think you are actually wrong about this. The two issues can't be split apart. If you don't have characters that are likeable (in that I want to have a voyeur like view of their life not whether or not they are a "good" or "bad" person) you have to rely on pacing and plot to carry a show.
Vampire Diaries, by and large with maybe two exceptions, don't have great characters. Many of them are one dimensional and a show about them sitting around a farm doing nothing but talking about who the leader should be would be extremely unappealing and unwatchable. However, that show burns through plot and has the most frantic pacing I have ever seen on a show. Information presented to the audience is readily distributed and used by the characters on the show in the service of the plot. Basically, what I am trying to say is VD would have gotten through Walking Dead's plot for this season in like an 1.2 episodes.
Walking Dead's characters could work if you just increased the pace. However, if you want to move at a snails pace and show the monotony of the apocalypse, you need characters you like and want to spend time with even if they are not doing anything particularly interesting. Part of it, I believes stems from casting. The actors on the show certainly look the part but what they are being asked to do just is not in their wheel house. BSG spent allot of time spinning their wheels and philosophizing but they had Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell and Paul Hogan making you give a shite and invest in these people's lives. Walking Dead lacks that.
Posted on 2/14/12 at 6:00 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
And since when does a character have to be "likeable," at least in the presence of good.
How about there is no one we want to see succeed? A good character is one to whom an audience can attach and root for their triumph. Generally, when the audience is starting to root for the "good" characters to fail something has gone wrong.
The problem isn't likability because I "like" Shane. The problem is that in good dramatic story telling, the idiotic dense characters usually have what's coming to them. The audience doesn't like to be guided through a story by retards.
If that occurs, the audience is taken OUT of the story and simply becomes a viewer wanting to take the torch from the retards and lead the story in their own way. Since they don't have that privilege, what's left is complaining on a message board.
This post was edited on 2/14/12 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 2/14/12 at 6:43 pm to SaintLSUnAtl
quote:
.this is the "absurd" thread. It was started to address the absurdity of the show.
I think the OP started it so the people with dissenting views would have a place to post them without ruffling the feathers of the TWD knights. It looks to me like he went out of his way to start this thread to give his opinion of the show instead of posting it in the other thread. He probably did this after being told to "go get your entertainment elsewhere and let us watch good TV" over there.
Since I don't watch the show I felt comfortable posting in this one. I was just curious about the popularity of zombies. I didn't post in the regular thread out of respect for the people that are "invested" in it. Hope my posts don't offend anyone.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 2:08 am to chinese58
I think people like the idea of being the ultimate survivor after the apocalypse. The reality is most of the people would be bored.
I would have liked a more zombie focused show. But alas, this is not going to happen. I accept it for what it is.
About the characters being likable, I guess I should rephrase. I want characters that don't suck. I can get behind an evil character, but I can't get behind a shitty character. And most of the characters are pretty shitty but they're forced to carry the weight of the show and no one is up to the task. Sad.
I would have liked a more zombie focused show. But alas, this is not going to happen. I accept it for what it is.
About the characters being likable, I guess I should rephrase. I want characters that don't suck. I can get behind an evil character, but I can't get behind a shitty character. And most of the characters are pretty shitty but they're forced to carry the weight of the show and no one is up to the task. Sad.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 7:42 am to Thundercles
I like Rick and Darryl. I hate Shane mainly because he is a terrible actor and tries too hard to look like a badass when he is clearly a Jew fro pussy who is jealous and always has been jealous of Rick. A gun doesn't make you a badass. Notice he stayed at the camp to try to get pussy instead of going to Atlanta in season 1? He isn't a leader. He is just a bitter guy who wants to play it safe.
Hopefully once Merle comes back and Darryl has to put him down he can become a bigger character.
Hopefully once Merle comes back and Darryl has to put him down he can become a bigger character.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 8:11 am to Thundercles
quote:
I would have liked a more zombie focused show.
That would be awful. Zombies cannot think, feel, or have emotions. They can barely even learn or react to stimuli. You cannot feel empathy for a zombie anymore than you feel for bacteria. A show "about" zombies is destined to be incredibly boring because, really, there's nowhere to go. It's very dualistic - either the zombie lives or dies. Nothing else.
The show absolutely has to be about characters, the people. People are complex and have an infinite possibility of stories. Now, you can say the show fails because you don't like the characters. I think this is a perfectly valid argument, but you seem to be doing everything you can to make every argument BUT this one.
If the show had complex characters you enjoyed watching, the other issues all evaporate. It is entirely a character issue. And I agree, outside of a few select chracters, the group isn't very interesting. Shane is one of the best characters on TV right now, I did like Dale but he's backsliding into just simple moralizing, Rick is occassionally interesting when he's not being steely-eyed, and Glenn also acts like a real person. Other than that, everyone else is a plot advancer or a stand in. Herschel has potential, as does Darryl, but both could be far more interesting than they are.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 8:19 am to Freauxzen
quote:Yup.
And since when does a character have to be "likeable," at least in the presence of good. Shane is a great character. The show doesn't celebrate Shane, but it's fun to watch him exist in that kind of environment.
Shane and Daryl are great characters.
They need Daryl's brother to come back in the fold, though.
And, as far as likeable characters, Glenn is extremely likeable and relateable. I think the actor playing Glenn has done a masterful job portraying the "college kid forced into the cruel world" role.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 8:20 am to Baloo
This always happens. I come in here and and offer the well thought out median early on, then you guys come in later and do the same thing. But you get fanfare. And I don't get any credit.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 8:22 am to Thundercles
quote:"Humans versus Zombies" is a show coming soon.
I would have liked a more zombie focused show.
It should fulfill your requirements.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 8:26 am to Baloo
quote:
The show absolutely has to be about characters, the people. People are complex and have an infinite possibility of stories. Now, you can say the show fails because you don't like the characters. I think this is a perfectly valid argument, but you seem to be doing everything you can to make every argument BUT this one.
If the show had complex characters you enjoyed watching, the other issues all evaporate. It is entirely a character issue. And I agree, outside of a few select chracters, the group isn't very interesting. Shane is one of the best characters on TV right now, I did like Dale but he's backsliding into just simple moralizing, Rick is occassionally interesting when he's not being steely-eyed, and Glenn also acts like a real person. Other than that, everyone else is a plot advancer or a stand in. Herschel has potential, as does Darryl, but both could be far more interesting than they are.
My thoughts exactly.
I almost wish the show had taken a "Lost" type approach and shown flashbacks from the pre-apocalyptic world to give us an idea of why the characters are who they are which would ultimately lead to us caring about them more.
Instead we were given random people which we know nothing about and forced to learn about them through there actions (which for the most part have been terrible decisions) and how they evolve.
Let's take Lori for example, one of the major characters: The ONLY thing we know about her is that she "cheated" on Rick and repeatedly does dumb things. What about that should make us like/care about her? I personally hope a gang of ravenous zombies picks her off the road and ends her storyline.
Then we have the Sophia storyline (which we have spent an entire season on). We knew NOTHING about her. The storyline itself is okay (a missing girl can be interesting) if we had reason to care about the girl herself. Instead we are forced to watch characters we dont like chase after a girl we know nothing about.
I'm done venting, at this point were all just going in circles.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 9:05 am to Baloo
Okay, I'm late to this party, but here are some of my thoughts..
It can be valid from a person-to-person perspective, but like someone said earlier, why do we have to "like" the characters for the show to work? TWD has some great characters on it. For example: Shane is a great character, and Dale is as well. Yet I don't particularly like either one of them. Great characters, but unlikeable people. But why can't I watch a show with unlikeable people? Part of the reason I watch is to get pissed off at Carol for not lifting a finger to find her daughter and not even thank the ones who are. Another part is to see how much morality Dale can try to shove in peoples' faces in the most douchey way possible. Or wanting Rick to be the badass we know he is instead of crying all the time. Or waiting for Herschel's world to be rocked with the fricking truth (definitely interested to see how tehy handle his character now that he's admittedly seen the light as to what the zombies really are..that was a great confession by him). Etc.
The characters are there, and they are good characters. Sure, they could be better-developed at times, but that doesn't mean they're not good though. Darryl is a perfect example. I'd love to know more about him and what makes him tick, but he basically is the no-nonsense, I just wanna get shite done guy with a nice guy streak underneath. Glen is the in over his head kid who is smarter than people give him credit for. Etc.
Another gripe is the decisions. Well, it's the obvious response, but the show would suck giant balls if the group just holed up in a giant, impenetrable, zombie-proof fortress away from any and all danger. Bad decisions are what advance the show. Now, I was definitely in the camp of "Are we really still looking for Sophia for the entire first half of the season?" but it was all building up to the barn scene. That was a great payoff IMO. Sure, I would've liked to have seen more "story" here or there, but there was enough IMO.
One of my gripes was that I wanted to see more human interaction (as in with other groups). That was a great storyline in season one, and I really loved this past episode in the bar. Because like someone said, a zombie apocalypse like on the show should be more about humans struggling to survive...not only against zombies but against other groups of people. Sort of the whole "Lord of the Flies" thing where people start doing some crucial shite when it comes to survival. The most dangerous thing in this scenario would be other groups of people. And that is evidenced by the group basically ruining everything the farm group had going for it and turning it on its head.
I think what Glen said near the end of the last half of the season was perfect...he had forgotten how dangerous the zombies are. I think these slow times for the group are setting the table for some shite to go down in the future...they get in a groove, get comfortable, and start lulling themselves into a sense of safety, and then something happens that brings the pain. It happened at their camp in the woods, it happened to Herschel and his family when the group invaded, and it looks like it may happen with this new angle of the easterners in the bar.
I hope this post made sense...I had to get some work done several times in the middle of typing it.
quote:
Now, you can say the show fails because you don't like the characters. I think this is a perfectly valid argument
It can be valid from a person-to-person perspective, but like someone said earlier, why do we have to "like" the characters for the show to work? TWD has some great characters on it. For example: Shane is a great character, and Dale is as well. Yet I don't particularly like either one of them. Great characters, but unlikeable people. But why can't I watch a show with unlikeable people? Part of the reason I watch is to get pissed off at Carol for not lifting a finger to find her daughter and not even thank the ones who are. Another part is to see how much morality Dale can try to shove in peoples' faces in the most douchey way possible. Or wanting Rick to be the badass we know he is instead of crying all the time. Or waiting for Herschel's world to be rocked with the fricking truth (definitely interested to see how tehy handle his character now that he's admittedly seen the light as to what the zombies really are..that was a great confession by him). Etc.
The characters are there, and they are good characters. Sure, they could be better-developed at times, but that doesn't mean they're not good though. Darryl is a perfect example. I'd love to know more about him and what makes him tick, but he basically is the no-nonsense, I just wanna get shite done guy with a nice guy streak underneath. Glen is the in over his head kid who is smarter than people give him credit for. Etc.
Another gripe is the decisions. Well, it's the obvious response, but the show would suck giant balls if the group just holed up in a giant, impenetrable, zombie-proof fortress away from any and all danger. Bad decisions are what advance the show. Now, I was definitely in the camp of "Are we really still looking for Sophia for the entire first half of the season?" but it was all building up to the barn scene. That was a great payoff IMO. Sure, I would've liked to have seen more "story" here or there, but there was enough IMO.
One of my gripes was that I wanted to see more human interaction (as in with other groups). That was a great storyline in season one, and I really loved this past episode in the bar. Because like someone said, a zombie apocalypse like on the show should be more about humans struggling to survive...not only against zombies but against other groups of people. Sort of the whole "Lord of the Flies" thing where people start doing some crucial shite when it comes to survival. The most dangerous thing in this scenario would be other groups of people. And that is evidenced by the group basically ruining everything the farm group had going for it and turning it on its head.
I think what Glen said near the end of the last half of the season was perfect...he had forgotten how dangerous the zombies are. I think these slow times for the group are setting the table for some shite to go down in the future...they get in a groove, get comfortable, and start lulling themselves into a sense of safety, and then something happens that brings the pain. It happened at their camp in the woods, it happened to Herschel and his family when the group invaded, and it looks like it may happen with this new angle of the easterners in the bar.
I hope this post made sense...I had to get some work done several times in the middle of typing it.
This post was edited on 2/15/12 at 9:20 am
Posted on 2/15/12 at 9:33 am to CocomoLSU
Good post Cocomo. I'm hoping the other group becomes a focal point for more than 2 episodes. I would love to even have a focus on the other group and how they have survived thus far(much like the folks from the tail of the plane on Lost). Some new characters would be good for the show. I know we got the farmhouse group this season, but they had a more calming effect rather than raising tension.
In fact, I think one issue is that the writers got rid of the tension building characters within the group (other than Shane) way too early. Merle and Sophia's daddy were unlikeable characters that brought tension to the group. I was happy to see Sophia's daddy die, which is why he probably shouldn't have died. As others have said, I dodn't think unlikeable is the proper word for many of the characters on the show. Unlikeable characters are great on a show. It's the ones we don't care one way or the other for that are the problem. Those types of characters should at least be hot women who just couldn't find enough clothes after the shtf. Every character needs to have some redeeming qualities.
In fact, I think one issue is that the writers got rid of the tension building characters within the group (other than Shane) way too early. Merle and Sophia's daddy were unlikeable characters that brought tension to the group. I was happy to see Sophia's daddy die, which is why he probably shouldn't have died. As others have said, I dodn't think unlikeable is the proper word for many of the characters on the show. Unlikeable characters are great on a show. It's the ones we don't care one way or the other for that are the problem. Those types of characters should at least be hot women who just couldn't find enough clothes after the shtf. Every character needs to have some redeeming qualities.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 9:43 am to Baloo
quote:
That would be awful. Zombies cannot think, feel, or have emotions. They can barely even learn or react to stimuli. You cannot feel empathy for a zombie anymore than you feel for bacteria. A show "about" zombies is destined to be incredibly boring because, really, there's nowhere to go. It's very dualistic - either the zombie lives or dies. Nothing else.
It would not make for good serialized tv but could make one hell of a good episode. Say, for instance, they kill off most of the cast of the show in a zombie attack during the teaser. The rest of the hour follows zombie Rick Grimes as he makes the reverse journey up I-75 back to Kentucky through a series of vignettes. Like for instance, the near miss of a little girl on an interstate, a massed assault of zombies on a farm house with a couple within that maybe ends in their suicide, and ends either in a field or a hospital with the death of zombie Rick Grimes (I would have it be at the hands of a grown up and recast Carl in that sheriffs hat...that or Omar Little).
quote:
The show absolutely has to be about characters, the people. People are complex and have an infinite possibility of stories. Now, you can say the show fails because you don't like the characters. I think this is a perfectly valid argument, but you seem to be doing everything you can to make every argument BUT this one.
If the show had complex characters you enjoyed watching, the other issues all evaporate. It is entirely a character issue.
You are of course right about this. TV shows are about 90% dialogue and thus have to be about people. The problem the Walking Dead has is that the current cast of characters is terrible. It needs to be re-tooled. The more I think about this problem the more I am convinced they need to shrink the main cast. There are far too many folks that get title credits on that show.
quote:
Shane is one of the best characters on TV right now
How? I don't think he is the worst part of the show but he isn't that great either. Lets see how many characters (in no particular order) currently on TV I think are better than Shane...Raylan Givens, Walter White, Leslie Knope, John Luther, Abed Nadir, Walter Bishop, Damon Salvatore, Alice Morgan, Gemma Teller Morrow, Jack Donaghy, Gregory House, Jesse Pinkman, Bobby Singer, Barney Stinson, Boyd Crowder, Caroline Forbes, Ron Swanson, and I could go on. My point through is that Shane even if he isn't terrible should be be mistaken for a great tv character.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 9:57 am to glaucon
I agree. Shane sucks mainly because of shitty acting. He looks silly when he is trying to be a badass.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 10:00 am to BhamTigah
quote:
Unlikeable characters are great on a show. It's the ones we don't care one way or the other for that are the problem.
Agreed. People like T-Dawg and Carol are just wastes of characters. Although Carol does have more going for her than T-D. T-D is absolutely fricking worthless. At least Carol has some history with her husband, Sophia, and some compassionate scenes with Darryl here and there.
Sophia is the perfect example though. Nobody cared about her character. There was nothing invested in her as a person aside from just the fact that she's a kid in the group. So after an episode or two of them looking for her, people didn't care anymore and almost even hoped she was dead. Hell, more was invested in Merle in season one, which was why them going back to find him was justified (stupid decision at the time, but it was more justified than the Sophia search that gobbled up 7 or 8 episodes).
Posted on 2/15/12 at 10:01 am to Chazz Reinhold
quote:
I agree. Shane sucks mainly because of shitty acting. He looks silly when he is trying to be a badass.
The acting is definitely laughable at times, but I think they're better this time than last time (maybe it's the situations?? I don't know).
But I agree that the actors playing Shane and Rick overdue it sometimes.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 10:52 am to CocomoLSU
I like Rick but not as much as I did before I knew he was British in real life. I just can't think of anyone with a British accent as a badass.
Posted on 2/15/12 at 5:07 pm to Chazz Reinhold
He was the pathetic guy that fell in love with his friend's fiance/wife in Love Actually
Posted on 2/16/12 at 12:00 am to Thundercles
you are so true the show is stupid and i have been watching it and I am waiting on it to get better
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News