aFireInside Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 If you do lets talk about the latest episodes, I'm a big fan.
dsayers Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 What do you like about it? I've never seen anything about it (besides the first few minutes of the iPad app by the same name), but I've heard of it many times. I've never checked it out because the zombie thing never really appealed to me. But I'm always interested in new series, so long as they don't just parrot the narrative.
aFireInside Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 We'll it doesn't have any depth or philosophy in it. I like watching hypotheticals like what if there was a nuclear war...etc It's basically a good drama, it keeps you on the edge. It has friendships and love story's in it. I don't really care about the zombies what I like is how people react to the circumstances. You could switch zombies for anything else and it will still be a good show . It's kind of like a soap-opera, you now it's cheese but it still a good story . I'm like a kid, I like good stories
Freedomain Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I'm still on the last season... but don't feel very motivated to watch it anymore. I find everybody on the show to be thoroughly unlikable, incredibly stupid or both. Every episode would involve my wife and I screaming at the screen talking about the obvious things we'd have done differently to avoid the latest major problem.
aFireInside Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 I'm still on the last season... but don't feel very motivated to watch it anymore. I find everybody on the show to be thoroughly unlikable, incredibly stupid or both. Every episode would involve my wife and I screaming at the screen talking about the obvious things we'd have done differently to avoid the latest major problem. Haha I know they are stupid . It's very cheesy, I wonder why I'm addicted to it ??
dsayers Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Well don't read too far into it. I've noticed that most series are only good for 2-3 seasons, if that. If you look even to the classics, there usually comes a point in time where they start loading up extra characters and other stuff to prop it up. Worst is with sitcoms that start throwing in deaths, marriages, etc. You know, unfunny stuff. Even the recycled pairing off of characters like with Friends and That 70s Show sort of indicates they're running out of fuel. In fact, the only series I've seen in recent years that did a good job of sticking to their original design were Psych and Dexter. I just started season 2 of House of Cards and feel it deviated from what made it interesting almost immediately. For shame. So, Mike, did you find Walking Dead to not be that way in the beginning? How far in would you say it went from being interesting to not for you two?
Wuzzums Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I am a big fan of the comic book, it's a very good read. The tv show however is very different. Frank Darabont (director of the 1st season) is also a big fan, him and Kirkman (the writer of the comic book) decided not to tell the same story again because they knew most of the audience will be comprised of people that read the comic. Instead they created a "what-if" narrative, same characters, different scenarios. Season 1 was a success. It created an audience. Then the studio fired Darabont, cut the funding significantly, hired some idiot, then released season 2. This is why there's such a huge contrast between the first two seasons. Darabont's TWD project had a story that was supposed to pan out for several seasons, it was a work of love, and it was made with a specific direction in mind. All the ideas he had for the show are now gone. (a little spoiler warning) For instance, in the original narrative Andrea and Dale were major characters, quintessential to the survival of the group, but in the tv show they were just annoying and got killed off early on. "Coincidentally" the actors that were playing these characters are close friends with Darabont. Dale's role in the story was replaced by Hershell, Andrea's role in the story was replaced by Daryl. TWD got better by season 3 and 4 because the show hit rock bottom with season 2, and when you hit rock bottom the only way to go forward is up. I like the show now, it finally got some traction, but who knows what could've been had the studio not fired the only guy that knew what he was doing.
Magnus Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I watch it, but not very enthusiastically. Like all dystopic fiction, it's not about a horrible possible future. It's about the horrible world as it exists today. Zombies are metaphors for the vast majority of people who live as if they are dead. Mostly harmless, except in large numbers. Easily aroused by meaningless noise. Zombie fiction is America's anxiety about entering a new age of collectivism. The problem with the Walking Dead is that the show has no direction. They clearly have no end-goal. People come and go, locations change, but there isn't any real development. The story is not progressing toward anything, no climax, no catharsis. They are making it up as they go along. That lack of narrative coherence causes people to lose interest. It was the same problem that LOST had, although that show did a better job of hiding the fact that they had no ending in mind.
aFireInside Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 I watch it, but not very enthusiastically. Like all dystopic fiction, it's not about a horrible possible future. It's about the horrible world as it exists today. Zombies are metaphors for the vast majority of people who live as if they are dead. Mostly harmless, except in large numbers. Easily aroused by meaningless noise. Zombie fiction is America's anxiety about entering a new age of collectivism. The problem with the Walking Dead is that the show has no direction. They clearly have no end-goal. People come and go, locations change, but there isn't any real development. The story is not progressing toward anything, no climax, no catharsis. They are making it up as they go along. That lack of narrative coherence causes people to lose interest. It was the same problem that LOST had, although that show did a better job of hiding the fact that they had no ending in mind.Great insight i never thought about it like that I am a big fan of the comic book, it's a very good read. The tv show however is very different. Frank Darabont (director of the 1st season) is also a big fan, him and Kirkman (the writer of the comic book) decided not to tell the same story again because they knew most of the audience will be comprised of people that read the comic. Instead they created a "what-if" narrative, same characters, different scenarios. Season 1 was a success. It created an audience. Then the studio fired Darabont, cut the funding significantly, hired some idiot, then released season 2. This is why there's such a huge contrast between the first two seasons. Darabont's TWD project had a story that was supposed to pan out for several seasons, it was a work of love, and it was made with a specific direction in mind. All the ideas he had for the show are now gone.(a little spoiler warning)For instance, in the original narrative Andrea and Dale were major characters, quintessential to the survival of the group, but in the tv show they were just annoying and got killed off early on. "Coincidentally" the actors that were playing these characters are close friends with Darabont. Dale's role in the story was replaced by Hershell, Andrea's role in the story was replaced by Daryl. TWD got better by season 3 and 4 because the show hit rock bottom with season 2, and when you hit rock bottom the only way to go forward is up. I like the show now, it finally got some traction, but who knows what could've been had the studio not fired the only guy that knew what he was doing.Yeah I heard about the firing and shadyness but we'll see where it goes Well don't read too far into it. I've noticed that most series are only good for 2-3 seasons, if that. If you look even to the classics, there usually comes a point in time where they start loading up extra characters and other stuff to prop it up. Worst is with sitcoms that start throwing in deaths, marriages, etc. You know, unfunny stuff. Even the recycled pairing off of characters like with Friends and That 70s Show sort of indicates they're running out of fuel. In fact, the only series I've seen in recent years that did a good job of sticking to their original design were Psych and Dexter. I just started season 2 of House of Cards and feel it deviated from what made it interesting almost immediately. For shame. So, Mike, did you find Walking Dead to not be that way in the beginning? How far in would you say it went from being interesting to not for you two?I tried watching house of cards and got bored, it was too realistic . I already listen to Fdr podcast plus I got tired of politics . I try to keep them out of my mind most of the time
dsayers Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I can relate. I had watched season 1 of HoC awhile back. When season 2 came out, I wasn't at all interested. Recently, Stef was talking about it and brought up things I hadn't thought of, so I thought I'd give it another chance. He's right that it's awesome that this sort of mentality is entering the mainstream, but you're right that it's too realistic to satisfy the abnegation we indulge when we watch shows and movies. I'm mostly pushing forward since to me, it's still unclear if the series is meant to glorify such treachery or not. I will say that I really do enjoy the way they're highlighting how aggression directly impacts the complexity of one's own well-being and survival.
nathanm Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 So there's a comic book, a TV series AND a game series for this, and it's all generally the same thing? Do I have that right? I watched one Let's Play of the game and it did grab me, but was also annoying. One group of humans infiltrated another group, killed a couple of folks and then kidnapped them at gunpoint with a foreshadowing to the next episode with Stockholm syndrome-ish living in this cult community. Grrr. Forming hierarchies every fucking time, nobody learns shit from the past. Always gotta be some asshole that's the leader. I'm sick of that shit. The whole conceit of every zombie movie seems to be that hardly anyone acts civil in apocalyptic circumstance, and it all deteriorates into violence. It's cynical as hell if you ask me. The world needs a good non-dystopian fantasy where an anarchistic society is portrayed as normal. Every other movie about a possible future involves shit hitting the fan, or massive governmentevil corporation. For artsy zombie film you want Dellamore Delamorte a.k.a. Cemetary Man. Because Anna Falchi. Oh, and it's still good besides that.
aFireInside Posted March 18, 2014 Author Posted March 18, 2014 So there's a comic book, a TV series AND a game series for this, and it's all generally the same thing? Do I have that right? I watched one Let's Play of the game and it did grab me, but was also annoying. One group of humans infiltrated another group, killed a couple of folks and then kidnapped them at gunpoint with a foreshadowing to the next episode with Stockholm syndrome-ish living in this cult community. Grrr. Forming hierarchies every fucking time, nobody learns shit from the past. Always gotta be some asshole that's the leader. I'm sick of that shit. The whole conceit of every zombie movie seems to be that hardly anyone acts civil in apocalyptic circumstance, and it all deteriorates into violence. It's cynical as hell if you ask me. The world needs a good non-dystopian fantasy where an anarchistic society is portrayed as normal. Every other movie about a possible future involves shit hitting the fan, or massive governmentevil corporation. For artsy zombie film you want Dellamore Delamorte a.k.a. Cemetary Man. Because Anna Falchi. Oh, and it's still good besides that.The story's are actually diffrent but I'm guessing the style of writing is the same. Like in the show there was dictatorship but then they realized that doesn't work so they kind of turned it into a democracy .
cynicist Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 The problem with the Walking Dead is that the show has no direction. They clearly have no end-goal. People come and go, locations change, but there isn't any real development. The story is not progressing toward anything, no climax, no catharsis. They are making it up as they go along. That lack of narrative coherence causes people to lose interest. It was the same problem that LOST had, although that show did a better job of hiding the fact that they had no ending in mind. The development is in the characters, especially how they have changed in order to survive in the new world. I'm not sure what climax you can expect, it's not a mystery or thriller. Grrr. Forming hierarchies every fucking time, nobody learns shit from the past. Always gotta be some asshole that's the leader. I'm sick of that shit. The whole conceit of every zombie movie seems to be that hardly anyone acts civil in apocalyptic circumstance, and it all deteriorates into violence. It's cynical as hell if you ask me. Seems accurate lol. Anyway I am a fan of the show but the zombie aspect isn't particularly appealing (not a fan of the gore) so I'd prefer a post-apocalyptic-war setting but I really enjoy seeing how people are influenced by their beliefs/histories. I particularly enjoyed how when Rick tried to appeal to the Governer for peace, the Governer couldn't believe him (muttering "liar" under his breathe) because accepting the possibility that they could coexist without violence would condemn all his prior actions, the ones he excused as necessary for survival. So from the outside it seems retarded for the two groups to fight, but that's only without the understanding that accepting peace would be equivalent to accepting that everything he did prior was evil.
Mike Fleming Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 I enjoyed the first few years of the comic book. For those who don't know you can pick up a 48 issue anthology which is great value and a great read. http://www.amazon.com/The-Walking-Dead-Compendium-One/dp/1607060760/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1395576126&sr=8-2&keywords=walking+dead+anthology The TV show? Season 1 was kind of OK. I enjoyed season 2 when they were on the farm. When they went to the jail it started going downhill fast and by the time they got to the season finale, which was completely pointless and nonsensical and boring, it was the last straw for me. I haven't watched it since. I already listen to Fdr podcast plus I got tired of politics . I try to keep them out of my mind most of the time Me too. I regard countries as cults and the politics is just the functioning (or dysfunctioning if that is a word) of the cult. I have as much interest in the cult of Australia, or the cult of America or whatever as I have in the cult of Scientology.
Magnus Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 The development is in the characters, especially how they have changed in order to survive in the new world. I'm not sure what climax you can expect, it's not a mystery or thriller. The development of all good stories is in the characters. The plot (external action) is merely a driver, or means of expression, of inner development. I find the Walking Dead show to lack coherence and direction in the development of its main characters. Even if the show were going to opt for the Soap Opera format (of endless conflict without resolution), the show lacks a core intractable conflict (and thus constant tension) between main characters and the ideals they represent (the way that even Lost, which was not a good show, had ideological tension between Locke (mysticism) and that doctor guy from Party of Five (rationality)). The climax, or catharsis, occurs when the main character(s) reaches a catharsis and completion of his arc. I have no sense of where this show is heading toward such a resolution, which makes it less successful and somewhat boring, even though I generally enjoy post-apocalyptic fiction quite a lot.
Recommended Posts