Jump to content

The Walking Dead: Discussion Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Good point. I think that Kirkman uses characters, mostly women, to create drama which out much thought to how the viewers might react to them. He did it with Lori who just did incomprehensible things to help build the Rick/Shane tension. The same is happening now with Andrea. She is doing nonsensical things to add to the tension between Rick and Phillip. I am looking forward to Rick and Phillip finally meeting. Rick has already decided that he is a dead man. I fervently hope that Phillip gets a long painful death, but a hatchet in the head will do just as well.

Edited by Ann_SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, The Walking Dead is a monster, holding its own against the Oscars. The 18 to 49 demo was slightly up from last week, 5.7, making it the highest scripted tv show last week, beating The Big Bang Theory. Overall, it had 11.01 million viewers.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/02/26/sunday-cable-ratings-walking-dead-wins-night-live-from-the-red-carpet-ax-men-bar-rescue-shameless-more/170856/#comments

Edited by Ann_SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I thought the Merle/Herschel scene was actually really excellent, and fleshed him out a lot. He seemed to clearly respect and defer to the older man. He didn't even go all caricature on Michonne. It was some of the most restrained work I've ever seen from Michael Rooker, who is a fantastic talent but has been going big with performances all the way back to Cliffhanger. And he looked right working with the group. If they continue taking him down an unexpected redemption road, I think he could do very well.

I've said this before, but I don't mind Andrea. I think she's a realistic character, a conflicted, neurotic, contradictory human being like so many of us are. We all talk about what we would do in a zombie apocalypse and it comes down to cliches we saw characters do in movies. I think the real day to day process of living would be more like what Andrea faces - constantly having to reexamine her feelings, choices, morality, needs, expectations. I think Laurie Holden does an amazing job. That's why the nerd rage for characters like her has always been so white-hot, IMO; because she doesn't fit into the preordained avatar of what people think they'd become in the face of true catastrophe.

Michonne and Andrea's scene was great, and needed. "I knew it would hurt you." I also wouldn't mind seeing Milton/Dallas Roberts become a prison defectee. I think he's got a future if they so choose.

The ending was beautiful, with the great song and Rick with his two consiglieri. You could see how proud Herschel was of Rick. The group seems to be mending. I just hope Tyreese and Sasha can fit into it. I'm sure they'll get more development over time, but hopefully Sasha won't die too soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree about Andrea, although I think part of it is telling us rather than showing us some key aspects of her stories (telling us she was close to Michonne, telling us she was close to Dale, too much time spent on her flirting with the Governor instead of showing her reacting a little more to Woodbury). I think in the last few episodes they've gotten her material right, and I can understand why she's conflicted, because she was never close to any of the people left in the group. Even Carol, who went out of her way to be nice this time around, was never all that close to her before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think she's conflicted about the prison gang - she knows they're good people - so much as she wants to believe she can fix this for both camps. Andrea was a civil rights lawyer, she still has ideals and a worldview and that's why she's doing this IMO. However naive that may be.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Laurie Holden will be on Ellen for anyone who's interested...

Speaking of Blondie, everything that Holden and Kirkman says does not tie to what is happening onscreen. Blondie has not played a woman desparate for shelter once! Look at Tyreese, this is a person desperate for shelter!!!!! We've seen Blondie do nothing but lust after Phillip and the life he leads. She all but admitted the zombie fighting turned her on, and she watched first hand while this man pit brother against brother in a fight to the death. Michonne nursed this clown back to health, yet Andrea draws a weapon on her. Michonne picked up on Blondie's adoration for Phillip on day one, and it had nothing to do with hot water, food or shelter. It was all about Phillip! She asked about Shane twice (her other demented lover) but barely inquired about Lori or her death. Rick is cold? She's staying at WB for the people? Who bought that? The people of WB were fine before she got there and will be ok once she's gone. Blondie has come off as nothing but a disloyal sex machine. I don't ever want her with the group again!

Lori and Andrea have come off as the two most unlikable characters on this show, and what is the common denominator here? Sex! That just looks really bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love Hershel as the group patriarch. I like him much better than Dale. Hershel manages to tell everyone hard truths in a compassionate loving way.

Regarding Andrea, as I said before, at its core I think she like Lori are basically plot devices to ratchet up the tension between two dangerous men who are in the process of squaring off. However, just like I never blamed Lori for Shane's craziness, I don't blame Andrea for Phillip's craziness. I still think that Andrea could be smarter, but I understand her wanting safety and trying to save the Woodburians from a horrible fate.

Edited by Ann_SS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just saw the article below about AMC and The Walking Dead. Basically, AMC is getting tons of ad revenues, but its greed and tendency for getting into legal disputes with cable providers has hurt its overall profits. It makes me think that no budget increases are ahead for The Walking Dead.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323884304578328013837954522.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy