|
theCalamity posted:The Telltale games excels at making you feel an emotional attachment to the characters, so much so that the game brought people to tears at the end. That attachment is what makes the third episode of the first season so shocking. Like the show, the group's haven is compromised by assholes and zombies and they have to run. People get bit, suicidal, shot, and left for dead in that episode and the survivors are left to wander about trying to find the next safe place. By comparison, this half of the show has been cheery. I think it's more an interactive movie than a game but it sure was much better than anything the TV show has given us. e: that kid that hosed everything for everybody every time was ridiculous though MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Mar 13, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
That DICK! posted:Maggie lying down was really stupid, y'all. Also how did an old one-eyed domesticated dog survive alone in the zombie apocalypse for that long(unless it belonged to the kidnappers, in which case shut up I'm hoping the dog gets some airtime/storytime because his RL story is just too cool. (he lost his eye saving his owner from an attempted carjack) Hexel fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 17:51
|
|
)
|
It turns out the dog was vetting Beth and Darryl for Terminus and found the former acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
It's kind of amusing to see people say that the Telltale game has the best writing when they just used the 'if you didn't see someone die, then they didn't die' cliche in the second season. Also I felt like the whole Stranger arc was pretty weak and it seems really disjointed if you don't take the supplies. Plus Lee getting bit is basically the very definition of something bad happening simply for the plot and emotional impact. Now don't get me wrong, it was a good game with some good writing. But it is also shorter and more focused then the TV series, so it's easier to write.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Urdnot Fire posted:It turns out the dog was vetting Beth and Darryl for Terminus and found the former acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
TMMadman posted:Walking Dead Game spoilers Jesus christ, dude, spoil that poo poo! Some people haven't played the games yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
TMMadman posted:It's kind of amusing to see people say that the Telltale game has the best writing I have no idea what goons mean by "good writing" or "bad writing." I usually just read it as "I did not like it" or "I liked it".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I have no idea what goons mean by "good writing" or "bad writing." I usually just read it as "I did not like it" or "I liked it".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Yeah exactly. Also, you know TV is a visual medium. So. . . the writing is kind of secondary to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Jesus christ, dude, spoil that poo poo! Some people haven't played the games yet. The thing about the game (No. 1) is that it is set in the immediate aftermath, where chaos and uncertainty are underlying themes. Plus the game puts you in a zero sum game, and you don't know who is safe and who isn't. The show on the other hand has expanded its circle of immortality from Rick and Carl to, arguably, Daryl, Michonne, Glen, and Maggie (possibly Tyrese). When these people are on the screen does anyone get that feeling of dread that they could die at any moment? I think it is harder to set up better writing when you know that any danger you toss those people into has to be resolved in favor of the actor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Yeah exactly. I disagree. Unlike film, most TV shows have journeyman-quality directors rotate in and out every week, and rely on the same stable of actors over and over again. It's good writing that makes or breaks nearly every TV show and creates the ups and downs we all feel when watching. I think some people don't understand the actual process of writing TV, so they don't know who exactly to blame. In modern TV, the showrunner is usually the de facto head writer. They're responsible for the season arc and story beats. Each individual writer, aside from brainstorming the big picture, usually focuses on breaking down the dialogue and action in each individual episode. And as most of you know given TWD's revolving door of showrunners, nearly anything can be deemed the wrong direction or unproduceable by a network. By the time you get to editing the number of cooks in the kitchen is staggering. Having said that, I would reduce the show's problems to two: 1. Serialized TV suffers without an overarching goal or mystery, no matter how poorly executed. TWD is no exception. 2. Even if we give TWD the dubious distinction of trying to break that mold in order to be some sort of "character only" show (in other words, a procedural show by another name), most of the characters fall flat due to inconsistent or insufficient characterization and, at one time, too large of an ensemble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
The pacing is atrocious. The introduction and resolution of plot threads is unsatisfying. They set up cliffhangers and abandon characters for weeks on end. The dialogue is boring, the characters aren't fully realized and don't seem like actual people. The list goes on and on. Cocoa Ninja is spot on, the writing absolutely dictates the quality of most shows, and it varies wildly from episode to episode in some series' due to the nature of television production. It's been consistently awful in TWD as of late. rawdog pozfail fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Do you have any specific examples of said bad "writing". I mean you are claiming the show is lousy with it, so, there should be 20+ examples per episode, or no? I am not trying to be contrary! I honestly don't understand this POV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do you have any specific examples of said bad "writing". I mean you are claiming the show is lousy with it, so, there should be 20+ examples per episode, or no? rawdog pozfail posted:The pacing is atrocious. The introduction and resolution of plot threads is unsatisfying. They set up cliffhangers and abandon characters for weeks on end. The dialogue is boring, the characters aren't fully realized and don't seem like actual people. All of it. You really can't think of any specific instances of what I'm referring to? You thought that the culmination of the prison and woodbury arcs were satisfying? You thought the dialogue between Daryl and Beth was interesting and believable? You thought t-dogg/current Glenn are fully realized characters? You think abandoning characters from episode-to-episode is good pacing? That's all well and good but they are all, in my opinion, bad writing. As in, the thoughts on paper, which directly led to the moving images on the screen, were poorly thought out and bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
rawdog pozfail posted:All of it. Ok man. I get where you are coming from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Abandoning characters from episode to episode to only focus on two or three at a time actually is something I think is good, yeah. The cast is too big as it is, the best episodes work when they pare it down to the minimum. The pacing is less of a problem when you're not watching the show week to week, there were a lot of pacing issues that bugged me in season 3 that bothered me a lot less rewatching them all in a row. And yeah the show's terrible at forming resolutions to bigger plots like Woodbury and the prison, that's my single big beef with the show and it's why I'm much more ok with the wandering around this half of the season than I would be with this crew trying to tell a bigger story. They don't do "plot" well so it's better when they don't try (which is most of the time.) I like it working more like a procedural and I like most of the characters. Current Glenn is pretty terrible yeah. I liked the Daryl and Beth interactions. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Cocoa Ninja posted:1. Serialized TV suffers without an overarching goal or mystery, no matter how poorly executed. TWD is no exception. Mad Men is largely a plotless show that doesn't have an overarching goal besides a miserable misanthrope trying to be happy and it's pretty good. Also many segments of the walking dead had a goal (find Sophia, deal with the gov as the major ones) and they usually didn't make the show better, only worse. The most successful plot arc was probably shane and Otis getting medicine for Carl, and even that was ridiculous for a lot of cinematographic reasons. Governor rehab part 1 was also cool, until he clubbed Martinez. Even though I enjoy the tableau segments of these last few episodes, for me what ruins the magic is that the formula for the show is too transparent and payoffs are too long in the tooth. I feel like the drama in the show is too much like Walter jr complaining that he is out of the loop and not enough intelligent macguyvering yourself out of jams.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do you have any specific examples of said bad "writing". I mean you are claiming the show is lousy with it, so, there should be 20+ examples per episode, or no? "Bad" may be too much. It's basically functional, but fails to shine from any perspective. TV writing can excel in a bunch of different ways, for instance the plotting, characterization, dialog, or world-building. The Walking Dead doesn't offer anything outstanding in any of these areas. The plotting is slow and lacks interesting convolutions (compare to how the actions Walt takes to stay alive and out of prison in Breaking Bad reverberate through the show). The characters are broadly-defined and there isn't the experience of getting to know a nuanced character (compare to learning what makes Tony Soprano tick). The dialog flatly communicates what is necessary to move the plot forward (compare to nearly any line from Deadwood). The world-building goes nowhere that isn't entirely familiar from other zombie media (compare to the way that Game of Thrones depicts the relationship between events that occur thousands of miles from each other). The show lacks the incomprehensible reasoning and world of Agents of SHIELD, the inhuman soap-opera dialog of Arrow (but also lacks its lightning-fast plot development), or the incoherent plot of Lost (but also lacks its richer characterization). So it's not bad, it's just in no way good. Which is, at least for me, worse than being outstanding in some ways and poor in others. Where the show excels is production design. The zombie effects are well-executed and the show does a great job depicting them get taken apart. The sets always look nice. The main reason I watch is in order to, well, watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
I agree the dialog is in no way special in terms of Tarantinoesque power. I think you are over looking many round characters, like Carol for example. I think you overlook or unfairly discount the shows thematic consistency use of dialog situations and visual symbolsm to evoke some pretty deep reflections on the experience of being human. It's basically been a rather consistent existentialist meditation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
zVxTeflon posted:The Terminus set must be really expensive. ~my explanation for this season. Naah, just borrow the old BBC one: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9wtxa_terminus-part6_shortfilms (Have I really been following this thread all season and no one's made this lame Doctor Who joke yet? For shame.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I agree the dialog is in no way special in terms of Tarantinoesque power. I think you are over looking many round characters, like Carol for example. Carol is one of the more interesting characters on the show, I'll give you that. But, frankly, that just means she's perhaps the only character to rise to the level of being two-dimensional, which still isn't saying much. Can you give some examples of what you're talking about in your second paragraph? It seems only fair, since you called out people for just giving vague claims without specific backing in regards to bad writing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Thinking back now, I liked Glenn's breakout of the prison. He dons a full suit of armor and covers his face, which as nicely indicative I think of the emotional defenses he was putting up dealing with the fact he was probably never going to see Maggie again. Once the helmet was on and the shield was down, he stopped becoming Glenn and became an anonymous soldier (I enjoyed the dissonance of a prison guard throwing a molotov into a police car.) He is basically giving up at this point, or has stopped the drive towards authentic existence (the path of Hershel) which was nicely shown by him diving into a crowd of zombies and being swallowed whole by the cloud of alienation. Or maybe a holy bath of zombie, Glenn emerges from the other side baptized in a bizarre ritual of full immersion. His detachment was further expressed by the (rare) POV shot from behind the visor. He is becoming detached from reality as the film of zombies goo starts to obstruct his view. BUT THEN out of the corner of his eye, he spots a maggie doppleganger angel, or doppelangel, idk, in a cage in some sort of praying position. And suddenly his anonymous soldier act is over. Importantly when he meets this new person (new to him) he takes off his helmet which makes him him again and shows that he is connecting back to the world and that he is projecting his authentic identity again. (I also liked the one bit where her gun was still full. Yeah she didn't shoot anyone but she didn't shoot herself, which shows that she still has will to live.) Also basically anything Hershel did or said in the fourth season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
The worst thing is that Carol's gone through more changes than anyone else on the show but fans still want it to get undone and have her be a liar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
messagemode1 posted:Mad Men is largely a plotless show that doesn't have an overarching goal besides a miserable misanthrope trying to be happy and it's pretty good. I appreciate your response. Here's my answers to the above: -I think you're confusing "plot" with "story." And it's my mistake to confuse the two as well. Let me clarify. Both The Walking Dead and Mad Men have "plots," i.e. events around which the episodes are structured and that mark the passage of time. But what Mad Men has in spades and the Walking Dead cannot grasp is a strong "story." The fact that in one line you are able to say the "story" of Mad Men is "Don, a damaged human being, tries to make peace with the world" is indicative of how focused that show is. In a way, you're right — it's not particularly important what the plot elements are. But Mad Men nearly always hits the mark of using plot to explore the central story. Can someone say what the "story" of The Walking Dead is? "Surviving" is not a story. How do humans respond and reconcile with the end of the world, perhaps? My response to that would be that this show doesn't do a good job of pushing that story, mostly by using too many characters and not relating back to the world we can understand. OK, this world is different. Maybe I buy that all these people want to do is survive. But absent flashbacks or explanations of their past lives I can't relate to what they're going through because the world is incomprehensible. As much as people disliked the Shane story sometimes, I thought it was EXACTLY what the show needs — marital infidelity, broken friendship, father-son relationships, the very things that make up our day-to-day lives, projected onto a world where the stakes are much higher. That's the point of post-apocalyptic fiction, I think. Once you're debating gun tactics and crap like that you've lost me and I think the soul of the story. -Goals are fine. In fact, I think good characters are usually sketched by first creating believable goals for them, both interpersonally and in relation to their larger world. The uncompelling implementation of capital-P "problems" in The Walking Dead is to me a symptom of the show's central issues, not a problem per se. If goals are well-written, they're extensions of the characters and are immediately interesting to us, i.e. they're internally and not externally imposed. To bring it back to Mad Men, it's not interesting that Don cheats on his significant other per se, it's WHY does he cheat, what compels him to cheat? Not what is his goal, but why? What are the immediate consequences, if any? It's screenwriting 101 — a 40-something business man who cheats on his wife is not compelling characterization. A 40-something businessman who cheats on his wife because (Mad Men season 4-5 spoilers) of a broken home, a hosed up sexual upbringing and a decision to hide his true identity? THAT's the beginning of someone we want to know more about. Michonne is made fun of for being silent because we're not told why she's silent. We don't know her goals and between flat material and a lack of acting we can only guess at motives. Andrea is given poo poo for falling in love with the governor because there is no consistency to her internal goals. If the point was to be more realistic and show someone with torn allegiances, it wasn't clearly drawn. -I don't understand your last point. As you can see I love rambling about this stuff, and it's interesting to hear other people's opinions about this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also basically anything Hershel did or said in the fourth season. The quote is nicely written on your part, but I'd file that under the production design and visual storytelling that I've already praised the show for. That's not a "dialog situation" which is the side of things I was more curious about, as being more centrally a matter of the writing. And, frankly, I'm not going to count "the fourth season" as an example. Would you have accepted "the entire show so far" as an example of bad writing when you asked for one? Not trying to be antagonistic, just curious what I'm missing. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
But that was my point! It's a tv show! Production design and visual storytelling are hugely important. With Hershel a more specific example is his insistence of treating the flu victims like humans and not closing their cell doors and personally nursing them. (He strove towards authentic humanity even in the face of overwhelming death ad when the "reasonable thing" to do would have been to shut those fuckers in cells and let them die. Compare of course to the path chosen by Carol.) Also without the scripts we don't know what was written and what wasn't. We don't know what was improved and what wasn't and we don't know what was cut. It's hard for me to critique the "writing" when we don't have the writing! I would rather stick to critiquing TV shows. euphronius fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:But that was my point! It's a tv show! Production design and visual storytelling are hugely important. I agree! As I said in my post, those things being well done is why I watch the show. But that doesn't mean that writing can't also be more interesting. There's shows which do both. euphronius posted:With Hershel a more specific example is his insistence of treating the flu victims like humans and not closing their cell doors and personally nursing them. Yes, to the extent that the writing feeds into the excellent production design, that's an example of good writing. But the writing that results in plotting, storytelling, world-building, characterization, and dialog is poorly done. And, while Hershel's decision to treat the flu victims and such is, sure enough, writing, I'm not sure what makes it good writing. If he had decided to treat them inhumanly, would that have inherently been bad writing? euphronius posted:We don't know what was improved and what wasn't and we don't know what was cut. It's hard for me to critique the "writing" when we don't have the writing! I would rather stick to critiquing TV shows. That's a reasonable position. My answer, then, would be that the show is poorly plotted, doesn't tell much of a story, doesn't establish an interesting world, and at best has produced a couple of two-dimensional characters, whether or not the good parts of the show are contributed to by the script. This is what I interpret statements about "bad writing" to mean, even if it's not entirely accurate as regards to whether the scripts contain valuable material.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
It's good writing because it harmonizes and enforces the main themes of the show. I mean yeah this show is not going to win a Nobel Prize for literature (I don't think it was even up for an Emmy), but there is a least reasonably successful accomplishment of art in its exploration of the human condition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
The "story" is a study of how different people come to terms with death in various circumstances, centered around a Job-like figure in Rick, who will never die but will instead spend the remainder of the story facing one catastrophic loss after another while maintaining his faith/humanity as best he can. "Survival" is a small part of that. It's totally fine to say the show does a bad job at this, of course, but I mostly like what it does. I do think the show lost something by expanding the cast so rapidly and moving away from Rick as its central figure, even if I've liked this half of the season and I think Rick's much less fun than half the cast. The first season's focus was on the loss of home, the second's was on the loss of his best friend, the third on the loss of his wife. Season four has tried to tell the story of the loss of his children (with Judith "dying" and Carl becoming his own man) but it hasn't done a great job of it, especially since it was really obvious that Judith wasn't actually dead. I actually love that the show is so gaudily in your face with its subtext. I love the violent man trying to bury his past digging up a gun in the garden, I love Daryl/Beth as the workers/country club goers, I loved Carl looking at his reflection in a TV surrounded by video games and going out pretending to be a badass, I love the recurring "Cyclops ruins everyone's home" thing. I love that almost every scene in the last episode is oozing with sexual tension. It's about as far from subtle as you can possibly get, but I absolutely admire how brash the show is with this stuff, even when the characters are given bad dialogue purely so they can prop up the episode's themes. It doesn't always work (Bob's alcohol problem) but when it does I think it's great. That "WE ARE THE WALKING DEAD" panel is essentially the level of subtlety of the whole show and somehow that's really fun to me. Edit: It's really good to see someone who thinks the show's doing a bad job writing a good take down of its flaws, by the way. We need more of that here and less of every single post that happens during and immediately after broadcast. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also without the scripts we don't know what was written and what wasn't. As I've said before, I like your visual analysis. But, this is total nonsense. The dialogue is scripted. The action is scripted. The plot is scripted. We know this because most TV shows -- this one, in particular -- operate on scripts. TV is a visual medium but its foundation is words on paper. I can say it's bad writing because, for the most part, their attempts to humanize each character are extremely repetitive and reductive. I can say it's bad writing because the zombies operate as deus ex machinas to move the plot, and their 'rules' are totally arbitrary. I can say it's bad writing because most of the women are terrible female cliches and most of the people of color are lame racial tropes. I can say it's bad writing because sometimes it hinges on lame mysteries but other times it almost explicitly slaps you in the face in telling you not to care about those mysteries. I can say it's bad writing because some characterizations make no sense. Why are we supposed to sympathize with the governor's second arc when we know he's a murderer, torturer, and possible rapist? The tonal shifts are terrible. The good part is that they've created an interesting sandbox in which to play. This leads to the cool things you've identified, and makes it possible to have neat commentary on the human condition. There is a bunch of potential here, including some really good characters from time to time (Shane, Carol, Hershel). But poo poo, that doesn't mean I can't say that a good portion of the show is bad. Entertaining, sure because I wouldn't watch it otherwise... but also bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Naet posted:I can say it's bad writing because most of the women are terrible female cliches and most of the people of color are lame racial tropes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Surlaw posted:This part, at least, has been a lot less bad this season. It was super terrible early on. This is true. I'm harsh in my judgment because this season has been an improvement overall even if the last few episodes have been disappointing. Michonne, for instance, is a real person now. And as mentioned, Carol became a great character and hopefully continues to be one in the future episodes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Nothing offends me more than when black people are stereotyped as samurai.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:Nothing offends me more than when black people are stereotyped as samurai. Until season 4, Michonne was an angry, exotic black woman who threatened white male authority and had literally no other motivation or characterization. That's a lovely and embarrassing character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
TBH I'm happy that she so consistently threatened white male authority because none of the other female characters were! e.g., that awful scene back on herschel's farm where all the women went to cook/do laundry/clean while all the men went to do the planning. But yeah, beyond that her characterization was pretty thin and I'm glad we're getting a more rounded treatment of her now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:e.g., that awful scene back on herschel's farm where all the women went to cook/do laundry/clean while all the men went to do the planning. Juxtapose that with the Season 1 scene of the women doing laundry (and loudly questioning why there were assigned gender roles) and cringe even harder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Show's definitely gotten better in those respects. Now we need another female villain besides Carol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do you have any specific examples of said bad "writing". I mean you are claiming the show is lousy with it, so, there should be 20+ examples per episode, or no? 1: Spend an episode and a half giving the Governor a redemption story 2: Halfway through the second episode of said story he just randomly murders his right hand that is offering him leadership 3: EVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIL You could literally cut out both of those episodes and not miss a loving thing. "But you'll miss character development!" Of the girl with Glenn maybe. They threw all character development with the Gov and his whole group in the trash out of Goddamn nowhere favoring "He's crrrrazy" over a legitimate motivation. They had so much to work with. They could have dragged him into that fight, FORCED him to try to take the prison, anything. They could have had their big battle and not have it be a giant gently caress you to the audience. So yeah. There's that. EDIT: Minor examples of bad writing? The fact nobody was ever watching the fences or the cells in the prison, no night time guard, no locked doors, no rally point in case something happened (DESPITE HAVING ONE THE FIRST loving TIME THEY GOT SPLIT)... to say nothing of "10-15 minutes of talking that happens but doesn't offer us any insight into characters." Is it the worst written thing on TV? Hell loving no. Not by a long shot. It's more or less coherent at least, even if dumb at times. But they want to do a slow character show without understanding how to maintain and progress a character, on and off. The ones they DO properly develop they kill. That said this season has been leagues better than Season 2 until very recently; the last few episodes are painfully reminding me of that. All I'm asking for is if you center an episode around a pair or trio of characters and you're going to have them spend most of that episode walking around and talking, at least use that time to develop them for the audience. Like I said, do you know ANYTHING about Daryl and Beth now that you didn't two Daryl and Beth episodes ago? Did they do anything to grow as a character, outside of Daryl being roped into joining bandits? Things happened around them, a few things happened to them, but nothing happened WITH them. Other than Rick and Carol, has anyone changed at all since the beginning of the series (or since their introduction?) All I've seen is they're more adept at zombie killing. Oh yeah, Michonne started talking instead of glaring wildly at people if you count that, but there was no reason for the change. Blazing Ownager fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
The Governor episodes are the culmination of the "can you come back?" mantra that got repeated throughout the first half of the season. Huge parts of the show dedicated their time to asking whether people can change, and the Governor episodes are an emphatic, "no, you can't, evil is evil." It was never meant as a redemption story. It wasn't a terrible idea, but the execution was horrible, and the fact that the first episode was actually pretty great made the dumber parts that followed worse.Blazing Ownager posted:Other than Rick and Carol, has anyone changed at all since the beginning of the series (or since their introduction?) All I've seen is they're more adept at zombie killing. Oh yeah, Michonne started talking instead of glaring wildly at people if you count that, but there was no reason for the change. I don't think Michonne's change was for no reason. She seemingly lived in isolation until she met Andrea, and Andrea was terrible company. She opened up when she met good people. Rick's changes should be the most important but the show's focused a lot less on him this year, probably due to people's reactions to the character. I don't think there are any huge Rick fans. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Naet posted:Until season 4, Michonne was an angry, exotic black woman who threatened white male authority and had literally no other motivation or characterization. That's a lovely and embarrassing character. This is kind of an unfair description. She isn't against the Governor because he's white, it's because she feels like he is a sleazy liar and she doesn't trust him which she clearly states several times throughout the season. I also don't really recall her threatening Ricks authority at the prison, she helps them and even commiserates with Rick about seeing his dead wife. If the Governor had been black, Michonne still would have taken the same actions. Her motivation is to protect herself and her friends. When she admits that she attacked the Governor to hurt Andrea it's pretty clear that she was hurt when Andrea decided to stay earlier in the season despite her "You'll only slow me down" line. She is getting a little more filled out this season, but to call her a lovely and embarrassing character seems way off. TMMadman fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:25
|
|