OT: walking dead | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT: walking dead

What was great about that episdoe is even though it contained only 4 people and took place essentially in one location it is one of the few times they thematically addressed the zombie apocalpyse big picture issues. Perhaps bringing back a character from the pilot stimulated these thoughts. Unlike season 2 rather than talking things to death they used equal parts action and dialogue to illustrate the big picture issues. And it wasn't overlty obvious in form of 'what have we become' debate over a group decision, rather a simple conversation about one person's choice (so less frustrating if they choose unwisely and that we can't control it). Also satisfying because even though its almost certainly futile*, the booby traps are the first time any character in the history of the show has done anything to try and to the zombie plague.
I read some really good reviews on this episode. The best thing about this episode is it was written by Scott Gimple (sp?) who is set to become the show runner next year. He also wrote "18 Miles Out" last year (the one where Rick and Shane took Randall out to leave him). Another good "bottle" episode.

Kirkman, the creator, said in one interview that he was embarrassed by this episode. Because he's been writing the comics for 10 years and he never thought to use rats/pigeons as bait to catch zombies. Hopefully Team Prison can use this knowledge to help defend the prison. hmmm?

* but maybe we can imagine a nationwide 'clear' movement. Hate to always criticize, but a smarter show might have at least hinted at that rather than make it only about an individual character that had totally lost himself. I get it that there is no hope, but tease us with hope then pull it away sometimes to hammer the point home rather than just dismiss it from the storyboard.
As for the nationwide/worldwide view, I don't think they want to look at that. Notice we get very little outside our little group. I think that's on purpose. We, the viewer, are supposed to be finding things out about the apocalypse as do the characters. This isn't a movie/show about a world wide zombie apocalypse, it's a show about survivors who happen to be in a zombie apocalypse. And actually I like that much better than "what's going on in the rest of the world?". They gave us a little at the CDC and about like Nebraska, Fort Benning, but not much.

As in the comics, I think as the series goes on they run into more groups and other areas. So we'll see how that plays out.
 
As for the nationwide/worldwide view, I don't think they want to look at that. Notice we get very little outside our little group. I think that's on purpose. We, the viewer, are supposed to be finding things out about the apocalypse as do the characters. This isn't a movie/show about a world wide zombie apocalypse, it's a show about survivors who happen to be in a zombie apocalypse. And actually I like that much better than "what's going on in the rest of the world?". They gave us a little at the CDC and about like Nebraska, Fort Benning, but not much.

As in the comics, I think as the series goes on they run into more groups and other areas. So we'll see how that plays out.[/quote]
That's fine, but I can't help but occasionally wonder WTF is going on and it is baffling if the characters aren't doing the same. So when things happen like the little sister wanting to kill herself it'd certainly help to have her express specific doubts or curiousity about whether there is anything out there beyond what's in front of their noses.

The only worldk review I recollect is Andrea once alluding to a possible island refuge for her and Michonne.

Its way easier in different genres, but 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy had its characters move across an apocalyptic landscape in search of life/sustenance and although virtually every turn yielded grey nothing-ness, their search convinced you they were trying and provided the necessary exposition that there was likely nothing else out there. I knew not to bother to see that movie, could make an equally engrossing TV show though.

So even though Atlanta is sacked, it is reasonable to expect a character to occasionally mutter some wonder about the country & rest of the world, ie "Are there zombies in Japan? With their density they must be screwed!" Also occasional hairbrained idle talk to freaking drive as far as they can in hopes of finding refuge. Or since they mentioned Stone Mountain last episode, maybe during guard-tower post-coital pillow talk Glen suggests leaving the prison and driving into the Smoky Mountains = less populated = less zombies. They can use all the arguments you are about to shoot at me to dismiss this as crazy talk, but it'd help establish the survivor brains aren't just zombie lit.
 
Its way easier in different genres, but 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy had its characters move across an apocalyptic landscape in search of life/sustenance and although virtually every turn yielded grey nothing-ness, their search convinced you they were trying and provided the necessary exposition that there was likely nothing else out there. I knew not to bother to see that movie, could make an equally engrossing TV show though.

So even though Atlanta is sacked, it is reasonable to expect a character to occasionally mutter some wonder about the country & rest of the world, ie "Are there zombies in Japan? With their density they must be screwed!"

1) In Japan, ninjas killed all the zombies. Duh.

2) I had the exact same reaction to the movie version of "The Road". The book was so well-written, but so unrelenting - I just didn't need to endure that on the big screen.
 
1) In Japan, ninjas killed all the zombies. Duh.
And the Samurai helped. Oh wait, Tom Cruise was the last one of them. Nevermind.

2) I had the exact same reaction to the movie version of "The Road". The book was so well-written, but so unrelenting - I just didn't need to endure that on the big screen.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. ;)

Was that the one where they end up on the coast/beach and the father dies? (I know "Spoiler")
 
.-.
That's fine, but I can't help but occasionally wonder WTF is going on and it is baffling if the characters aren't doing the same. So when things happen like the little sister wanting to kill herself it'd certainly help to have her express specific doubts or curiousity about whether there is anything out there beyond what's in front of their noses.
Well I think the comics take the same approach, so I wouldn’t expect that part to be different. But sure I can see them wondering. And I think Rick has expessed that, at least during the first season. And Andrea/Amy talked about Florida in that one episode (Vatos). Until they hit the CDC and found out it was world wide, so I guess they assume it’s pretty much like they are everywhere. Mostly though I think they are at this point trying to survive day to day. I guess you might expect it more from residents of Woodbury since they have returned to more normalcy.

Its way easier in different genres, but 'The Road' by Cormac McCarthy had its characters move across an apocalyptic landscape in search of life/sustenance and although virtually every turn yielded grey nothing-ness, their search convinced you they were trying and provided the necessary exposition that there was likely nothing else out there. I knew not to bother to see that movie, could make an equally engrossing TV show though.
I think I saw that movie. It wasn’t bad. I would think it would be tougher in this scenario though to do a lot of traveling, especially walking. It wasn’t like half, ¾ of the population was wiped out, it was turned into killing animals roaming the country. Gotta figure 350 mil people in the US, there are some survivors, but obviously not many, a few million? Bunch must have gotten put down by the military, bunch eaten, but still must be 100+ million out there wandering around.

Speaking of which, one of my problems is it’s been a year, I would figure more overgrowth, more animals (deer, wild dogs, etc.) would be prevalent. IDK, maybe the walkers are keeping the animal population in control????

So even though Atlanta is sacked, it is reasonable to expect a character to occasionally mutter some wonder about the country & rest of the world, ie "Are there zombies in Japan? With their density they must be screwed!" Also occasional hairbrained idle talk to freaking drive as far as they can in hopes of finding refuge. Or since they mentioned Stone Mountain last episode, maybe during guard-tower post-coital pillow talk Glen suggests leaving the prison and driving into the Smoky Mountains = less populated = less zombies. They can use all the arguments you are about to shoot at me to dismiss this as crazy talk,
Well some arguments, at least for Team Prison, it’s gonna be pretty hard to leave the prison with a baby. And they’ve discussed that. 3-4 hour zombie alarm. (by the way I doubt the baby survives the Gov/Rick “war”) Also the further out you go, the less supplies you have too. Not too bad if you are a hunter with 1 or 2 mouths to feed, but with a whole group, makes it tougher. And they’ve already established, living on your own isn’t good (see Morgan), need to be in a group (see Michonne).

They did have some people (Nebraska episode) that had people traveling. Those two Rick shot in the bar where from NJ and had tried for DC but where now in GA. They seemed to think it was pretty much the same everywhere. You can keep looking, but if you find a refuge, hold onto it. The Farm, The Prison, Woodbury.

Later in the comics they do try for DC and then a couple other places, so I don’t expect them to stay at the prison too long. Maybe into next season. But something will get them out.

but it'd help establish the survivor brains aren't just zombie lit.
I think part of the overall theme is that they aren’t that much different. In the comics Rick has an iconic line, which they haven’t used yet in the show…yet. He says of the survivors, “We are the Walking Dead”. The title of the show isn't meant to describe the zombies, it's meant to describe the survivors.
 
What was great about that episdoe is even though it contained only 4 people and took place essentially in one location it is one of the few times they thematically addressed the zombie apocalpyse big picture issues. Perhaps bringing back a character from the pilot stimulated these thoughts. Unlike season 2 rather than talking things to death they used equal parts action and dialogue to illustrate the big picture issues. And it wasn't overlty obvious in form of 'what have we become' debate over a group decision, rather a simple conversation about one person's choice (so less frustrating if they choose unwisely and that we can't control it). Also satisfying because even though its almost certainly futile*, the booby traps are the first time any character in the history of the show has done anything to try and to the zombie plague.

I thought the booby traps were awesome and that hideout was better than the prison which was surrounded by zombies.

I am not a fan of frank and it might just be because the actor isn't very good or the writing is poor.

Hoping Rick is coming back to sanity (and i think he is, as the encounter with morgan showed him the path he was on) because his scenes were difficult to watch.

Definitely the best episode of the season.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
I am not a fan of frank and it might just be because the actor isn't very good or the writing is poor.

Hoping Rick is coming back to sanity (and i think he is, as the encounter with morgan showed him the path he was on) because his scenes were difficult to watch.
Frank?

Yea I think that was one of the main points of the episode to snap Rick back.
 
Sorry. Had brain freeze. I meant Carl.
Ok, I was wondering if I missed someone.

Yea I really like Carl, the character. I think Chandler Riggs does a pretty good job. Compared to some others on the show, I can see he might pale somewhat.
 
Oof. Another poor episode. I am sure the inevitable battle with the Governor will be a great episode, but there have been a ton of duds in season 3.
 
.-.
Oof. Another poor episode. I am sure the inevitable battle with the Governor will be a great episode, but there have been a ton of duds in season 3.
Completely disagree. While not as good as last weeks (which had to be in the top 5 of the series), it was really good. Very tense the whole time. Some great character development. Let the antagonist and protagonist meet face-to-face. Saw the Governor try to play with Rick's mind, because he knows it's not in the right place now anyway. And Rick knows it too. Rick trying to be the cop and see through the BS.

The Martinez/Daryl interaction was brilliant (lieutenants), and the Milton/Hershel (the scientists/voices of reason) was also good. Let them get a look at the enemy as people.....before they kill them.

Also, finally (and yes this should have happened episodes before), got through to Andrea. She'll be up to something, we'll see who she enlisted to try and pull it off. Milton? Tyreese?

Nice that they also didn't have to go through the lead up to how the meeting came to be. Besides that would have meant more Andrea and until she starts trying to kill the Governor, people really don't want to see her. It was a nice touch that both the Governor and Rick told her she was not needed or really wanted at the negotiation table (or with either group). Kind of how a lot of fans feel.
 
Oof. Another poor episode. I am sure the inevitable battle with the Governor will be a great episode, but there have been a ton of duds in season 3.

Absolutely agree. I came late to the party and ripped through Seasons 1 and 2 in about 10 days. Caught up to Season 3 about 4 episodes ago and have hated anything to do with Woodbury, the Governor or Andrea.

SPOILERS

- Andrea could be the worst actress I've ever seen and every single scene with her and the Governor is cringeworthy.
- The forced "Anytown, USA" look of Woodbury, with kids riding their bikes 10 ft from the wall is ridiculous.
- Do not get me started on the Thunderdome gladiator fight scenes.
- I rewatched just about every scene with the Governor and his daughter because I was giggling so much the first time.
 
Absolutely agree. I came late to the party and ripped through Seasons 1 and 2 in about 10 days. Caught up to Season 3 about 4 episodes ago and have hated anything to do with Woodbury, the Governor or Andrea.
Well you might as well stop watching now. Unless of course someone is forcing you to. The prison/Woodbury/the Governor are pretty iconic in the Walking Dead comic books. So you are going to get a lot of them. Maybe even into next season.

- Andrea could be the worst actress I've ever seen and every single scene with her and the Governor is cringeworthy.
You obviously haven't seen too many actresses then. Not that she is the best, but she has been nominated for a couple awards, which pretty much ensures there are worse ones.

I understand the character may not have endeared herself to you (or a lot of people), but that is probably more on the writing than the acting.

- The forced "Anytown, USA" look of Woodbury, with kids riding their bikes 10 ft from the wall is ridiculous.
- Do not get me started on the Thunderdome gladiator fight scenes.
- I rewatched just about every scene with the Governor and his daughter because I was giggling so much the first time.
All stuff pretty much straight out of the comics. Since that is where most of the content is based out of, and you don't seem to like it, maybe this isn't for you??
 
Well you might as well stop watching now. Unless of course someone is forcing you to. The prison/Woodbury/the Governor are pretty iconic in the Walking Dead comic books. So you are going to get a lot of them. Maybe even into next season.


You obviously haven't seen too many actresses then. Not that she is the best, but she has been nominated for a couple awards, which pretty much ensures there are worse ones.

I understand the character may not have endeared herself to you (or a lot of people), but that is probably more on the writing than the acting.


All stuff pretty much straight out of the comics. Since that is where most of the content is based out of, and you don't seem to like it, maybe this isn't for you??

1) The Governor, Woodbury and Andrea are bad enough where I might not watch if it gets much worse for me. That's just how bad I think it is. And I'm not alone in this from what I read on other boards. The acting of those two and the premise of that gladiator/Thunderdome scene was absolutely horrific.

2) I've seen plenty of actresses. She's not good. I googled her award history and she was nominated in 1996 for a Gemini Award for Best Performance by an Actress in a Guest Role in a Dramatic Series (Due South, a Canadian crime drama). I don't think Meryl Streep is looking over her shoulder just yet.

3) You do know that it's okay if other people don't have the same opinion as you, right?
 
1) The Governor, Woodbury and Andrea are bad enough where I might not watch if it gets much worse for me. That's just how bad I think it is. And I'm not alone in this from what I read on other boards. The acting of those two and the premise of that gladiator/Thunderdome scene was absolutely horrific.
I know there are a lot of people who don't like the Andrea character (most don't blame it on the actress, but the writing). Most people are huge fans of the Governor, as a villain. Yes they want him to die, but that's part of the antagonist/protagonist thing. Antagonists die.

From what I have read most people find David Morrissey is doing a very, very good job with the Governor. (An aside - some comic book fans wanted the maniacal, narcissistic, psychopath Governor straight from the comic books. In them he was that way right from his introduction. In the series they have wanted him to kind of turn into that slowly, while still maintaining a kind of politician like quality. So those might be some of the people who don't like the way the Governor is being portrayed. But it's not necessarily the acting/actor they don't like.)

And of course there are those people who have trouble distinguishing the actor from the character. If they don't like the way the character is portrayed, they don't like the actor. Those people are not all that bright.

P.S. Just a heads up. I think from the previews this next episode is going to be centered around the Governor, Andrea and Woodbury.

2) I've seen plenty of actresses. She's not good. I googled her award history and she was nominated in 1996 for a Gemini Award for Best Performance by an Actress in a Guest Role in a Dramatic Series (Due South, a Canadian crime drama). I don't think Meryl Streep is looking over her shoulder just yet.
She's fine as an actress. Never said she was on the level of Meryl Streep, who is? But you did describe her as the worst actress you've ever seen. But when compared to Melanie Griffith or Megan Fox, or Kirsten Stewart, etc. she's loads better. So obviously you haven't seen very many actresses.

She has also been nominated for a couple Saturn awards. Which again implies she's better than some other actresses. Granted you may not have seen some of these other actresses, but then that would give proof you haven't seen that many actresses.

In case you haven't got it yet, I'm not a huge fan of hyperbole. And you seem to want to compare Holden to either the worst actress ever or Meryl Streep. She's somewhere in between.

3) You do know that it's okay if other people don't have the same opinion as you, right?
Sure. But it does make me wonder why someone who obviously has so many problems with a show, would bother to watch it?
 
I know there are a lot of people who don't like the Andrea character (most don't blame it on the actress, but the writing). Most people are huge fans of the Governor, as a villain. Yes they want him to die, but that's part of the antagonist/protagonist thing. Antagonists die.

From what I have read most people find David Morrissey is doing a very, very good job with the Governor. (An aside - some comic book fans wanted the maniacal, narcissistic, psychopath Governor straight from the comic books. In them he was that way right from his introduction. In the series they have wanted him to kind of turn into that slowly, while still maintaining a kind of politician like quality. So those might be some of the people who don't like the way the Governor is being portrayed. But it's not necessarily the acting/actor they don't like.)

And of course there are those people who have trouble distinguishing the actor from the character. If they don't like the way the character is portrayed, they don't like the actor. Those people are not all that bright.

P.S. Just a heads up. I think from the previews this next episode is going to be centered around the Governor, Andrea and Woodbury.


She's fine as an actress. Never said she was on the level of Meryl Streep, who is? But you did describe her as the worst actress you've ever seen. But when compared to Melanie Griffith or Megan Fox, or Kirsten Stewart, etc. she's loads better. So obviously you haven't seen very many actresses.

She has also been nominated for a couple Saturn awards. Which again implies she's better than some other actresses. Granted you may not have seen some of these other actresses, but then that would give proof you haven't seen that many actresses.

In case you haven't got it yet, I'm not a huge fan of hyperbole. And you seem to want to compare Holden to either the worst actress ever or Meryl Streep. She's somewhere in between.


Sure. But it does make me wonder why someone who obviously has so many problems with a show, would bother to watch it?

If you paid attention, I said I joined late and ripped through the first two seasons in the last month. I thought the first two seasons were some of the better TV I've watched in a while. Loved Darrell's character arc. Liked the whole Shane/Rick/Lori thing. So I "bothered" to continue watching it because I hope to get past some of what I haven't liked in Season 3 and I'm willing to stick with it for now.

I don't care if you're not a fan of hyperbole and I don't know why you think that a) I haven't seen many actresses and b) I don't like the writing of Andrea's character. I think she's the worst actress I've ever seen. Regardless of her Saturn awards (whatever they are), her overacting and overdramatic reactions are comical.

And if you want two specific reasons why I think the Governor is horrible? 1) Any scene with him and his daughter and 2) The Thunderdome scene and his ridiculous fistpumping.

Imagine it for a second. Someone doesn't agree with you and it's okay. Just think about that and let it sink in.
 
.-.
Completely disagree. While not as good as last weeks (which had to be in the top 5 of the series), it was really good. Very tense the whole time. Some great character development. Let the antagonist and protagonist meet face-to-face. Saw the Governor try to play with Rick's mind, because he knows it's not in the right place now anyway. And Rick knows it too. Rick trying to be the cop and see through the BS.

The Martinez/Daryl interaction was brilliant (lieutenants), and the Milton/Hershel (the scientists/voices of reason) was also good. Let them get a look at the enemy as people.....before they kill them.

Also, finally (and yes this should have happened episodes before), got through to Andrea. She'll be up to something, we'll see who she enlisted to try and pull it off. Milton? Tyreese?

Nice that they also didn't have to go through the lead up to how the meeting came to be. Besides that would have meant more Andrea and until she starts trying to kill the Governor, people really don't want to see her. It was a nice touch that both the Governor and Rick told her she was not needed or really wanted at the negotiation table (or with either group). Kind of how a lot of fans feel.

Starting with last point I think it was well-played that they just had the meeting at the episode start, but that illustrates the inherent problem with the show. There was no logical way that Rick would believe an Andrea brokered truce was possible nor any way he could reasonably agree to show up alone to a meeting with the Governor at a location chosen by the governor. Since that was impossible to write/explain they just jumped to it. I'm fine with that and agree with the choice, but it perfectly illustrates the weaknesses of the show. Contrast it with Breaking Bad where once its main protagonist - antagonist were at odds the henchman/plot etc.. kept them apart and both characters assidiously avoided any risk while plotting the other's demise.

Probs with meeting especially from Rick's standpoint:
1. Governor Henchman could have been hiding anywhere in barn
2. Governor's superior forces could easily have ambushed Darryl & Herschel
3. Governor's superior forces could clearly have devastated the prison, Governor didn't even need to show up at meeting.
4. Govenor walked out of Rick's sight while Rick relaxed
5. Rick drank out of glass Whiskey that could have been poisoned (again see BBad for masterful treatment of poisoning)
6. No reason whatsover for Rick to not simply shoot the Governor

But they did at least come up with a rationale for the Governor in that he wants to try and take Michonne alive so he kills two birds with one stone by establishing some trust pre-ambush (setting up a more devastating ambush at 2nd meeting) and he gets a free chance to size up Rick and try his Jedi-mind tricks.

P.S. I think the Governor character is both mediocre writing and poorly acted. Only the fishtank heads ventured into his true darkness. His continual low-key approach to everything is inconsistent with his supposed motivation as a dark power hunger meglomaniac. I know he's supposed to be a formerly impotent middle-manager that rose to the position by default and praying on the weak, but they've simply made him to milk-toasty, too much Phillip not enough Governor. For example they could/should have shown him loading up the walkers and plotting the purely intimidation aspect of their prison attack. Let us see him being purely cruel for cruelties sake and getting off with his henchman about how much havoc they'll wreak. Instead we simply get the recently coldly delivered 'it'll be a slaughter for their side not ours' line - oh my he's so treacherously nonchalant [sarcasm]. Nope, that doesn't work as menancing because he's nonchalant and matter of fact about everything.

P.P.S. Got too caught up in my criticism as I always seem to with this show. Your other points were spot-on, face-to-face was necessary and good. Liked the way they played the Andrea realization. Very good one-on-one's with Herschel-Milton and even better Darryl - Martinez, even if the latter was a little Top Gunny (not that there is anything wrong with that ;).
 
If you paid attention, I said I joined late and ripped through the first two seasons in the last month. I thought the first two seasons were some of the better TV I've watched in a while. Loved Darrell's character arc. Liked the whole Shane/Rick/Lori thing. So I "bothered" to continue watching it because I hope to get past some of what I haven't liked in Season 3 and I'm willing to stick with it for now.
Fair enough. Just odd. I've seen where many people didn't really like season 2 (as compared to season 1), but are extremely happy with season 3. Believe it to be the best yet.

I don't care if you're not a fan of hyperbole and I don't know why you think that a) I haven't seen many actresses and b) I don't like the writing of Andrea's character. I think she's the worst actress I've ever seen. Regardless of her Saturn awards (whatever they are), her overacting and overdramatic reactions are comical.
a) well because I have shown you a few actresses who are much worse than Holden. And there are 1000's out there that are. Which means you haven't seen too many actresses if she is the worst you've seen. It's like saying UCONN men's team is the worst team you've ever seen. Unless you've never seen any of the other teams that they have beaten or aren't even in their league (e.g. high school teams, AAU teams) then it's pretty much hyperbole. b) I was trying to give you an out (it's not her acting, it's the writing) so you don't look so foolish.

And if you want two specific reasons why I think the Governor is horrible? 1) Any scene with him and his daughter and 2) The Thunderdome scene and his ridiculous fistpumping.
1) So I am assuming you think Hershel (or Scott Wilson) is a terrible character/actor too? Because he kept his relatives alive also.
2) Again, this is straight out of the comics. Not a take off of Thunderdome for TV. Now if you had commented on the extras in those scenes then there might be some validity in your "opinions". They were kinda goofy. But the Governor himself?? Morrissey is a very good actor and is portraying the Governor very well. Now if you don't like that the Governor is a very mentally deranged, maniacal, narcissistic, psychopath, well that's what the character is and is supposed to be. (Kind of like saying you don't like Peter Pan cause he flies around....that's what he does, who he is. - or she does if you are watching the play.)

Imagine it for a second. Someone doesn't agree with you and it's okay. Just think about that and let it sink in.
I have no problem with other thought out opinions. Just not silly, unintelligent, hyperbole ones. Sorry.

People have been waiting for 2 seasons to get to the Woodbury/Governor part. That's one of the main iconic locations/antagonists in the whole series.

I have a feeling he is going to be around til next season. Not sure Andrea will make it though. They need some way to redeem her. SPOILER (possible???) In the comics the Governor brutally raped and tortured Michonne. Wonder if they may not have that happen to Andrea??? Be a way to get people to feel for her again. Just a thought, haven't read or heard anything about that. I think it would work though. Allow Andrea to continue on into Season 4 and beyond.
 
I really don't care what other people have to say about season 1, 2 or 3. I don't care that other people have waited to see Woodbury. And I don't care what's in a comic book. I stopped reading those when I was 13. I watched the show because people thought I'd like it and I did....and now, I don't like it as much and I've outlined why.

I like Hershel's character. I like how he was the alpha dog on his farm with an unreal vision of what the rest of the landscape was like, then how we saw him learn what the real world was like and defer to Rick . He kept people alive but in a more "believeable" way for me. I think the Governor scenes with his daughter were funny and poorly acted. Putting on the music, singing to her, combing a piece of her scalp off while she's hissing and gnashing at him? that was bad.
 
Starting with last point I think it was well-played that they just had the meeting at the episode start, but that illustrates the inherent problem with the show. There was no logical way that Rick would believe an Andrea brokered truce was possible nor any way he could reasonably agree to show up alone to a meeting with the Governor at a location chosen by the governor. Since that was impossible to write/explain they just jumped to it. I'm fine with that and agree with the choice, but it perfectly illustrates the weaknesses of the show. Contrast it with Breaking Bad where once its main protagonist - antagonist were at odds the henchman/plot etc.. kept them apart and both characters assidiously avoided any risk while plotting the other's demise.
Well he didn’t show up alone, he had his #2 and basically the only other person he could bring with him (also his sounding board). Couldn’t bring Merle or Michonne (then he would have to worry about the Gov going after them). Couldn’t bring Glenn or Maggie (then he would have to worry about them going after the Gov). Carl? No way putting his son in possible harm’s way. Beth or Carol (or Judith)? Ha, he’d bring a one legged old guy before having them as back up.
Agree it would be kind of hard to explain how Rick (or the Gov for that matter) was going to trust Andrea with setting this up. However, we don’t know if the Gov chose this place or if Rick did???
As for BB? Pahleese, don’t get me started. (jk). They met in the comics, they were going to meet in the series. Just the way it was going to be. They wanted the two to have a face to face. And I think it worked really well. Kirkman talked about they had to meet. They wanted a kind of Appomattox thing, but without a peace.

Probs with meeting especially from Rick's standpoint:
1. Governor Henchman could have been hiding anywhere in barn
2. Governor's superior forces could easily have ambushed Darryl & Herschel
3. Governor's superior forces could clearly have devastated the prison, Governor didn't even need to show up at meeting.
4. Govenor walked out of Rick's sight while Rick relaxed
5. Rick drank out of glass Whiskey that could have been poisoned (again see BBad for masterful treatment of poisoning)
6. No reason whatsover for Rick to not simply shoot the Governor
1. So could have Rick’s.
2. Rick could have brought his entire group and ambushed them.
3. Don’t think he wants to waste all his personnel on a frontal assault. Or a sneak in from the back assault. He realizes he has the numbers (Grant), but not the hardened fighters (Lee). He knows he can win through attrition and will if needed, but if he can get rid of them some other way without losing a lot, I’m sure he would prefer to have some left to actually be the Governor of. Also if they lose a lot, next time he wants/needs to fight some group, less likely he’ll be able to convince what’s left of Woodbury to fight for him.
4. Ok I don’t remember that. ??? Getting the whiskey??
5. I think he knew what he was doing. And poison in a glass? Pretty cheap. Princess Bridish. If that’s what BB uses, maybe I don’t want to watch it??
6. Very good reason. How many people does he lose outside if he starts something inside. He doesn’t know who has the drop on whom outside. Also as yet, Rick has not killed anyone in cold blood. He almost did with Randall, but couldn’t do it. He killed the two in the bar, but they drew on him. Granted the Governor would be a good place to start. Well Tomas sorta I guess, but Tomas had just tried to kill him and wasn’t under a truce at the time. (i.e. wave the white flag, come for peace talks).
Rick knows he’s outmanned and out demented. And he actually cares about his people as opposed to the Governor. With the Governor it is “we lost how many?, so how many do we have left?” (just a numbers game). So if there is a way to get out of this without getting his people killed, I think Rick believes he has to take a look at it. He's already having trouble dealing with losing people. Go to war and he'll lose a lot more. Besides, he like the Governor probably wanted to size up his opponent.

But they did at least come up with a rationale for the Governor in that he wants to try and take Michonne alive so he kills two birds with one stone by establishing some trust pre-ambush (setting up a more devastating ambush at 2nd meeting) and he gets a free chance to size up Rick and try his Jedi-mind tricks.
I think you hit on something really, really good there.

P.S. I think the Governor character is both mediocre writing and poorly acted. Only the fishtank heads ventured into his true darkness. His continual low-key approach to everything is inconsistent with his supposed motivation as a dark power hunger meglomaniac. I know he's supposed to be a formerly impotent middle-manager that rose to the position by default and praying on the weak, but they've simply made him to milk-toasty, too much Phillip not enough Governor. For example they could/should have shown him loading up the walkers and plotting the purely intimidation aspect of their prison attack. Let us see him being purely cruel for cruelties sake and getting off with his henchman about how much havoc they'll wreak. Instead we simply get the recently coldly delivered 'it'll be a slaughter for their side not ours' line - oh my he's so treacherously nonchalant [sarcasm]. Nope, that doesn't work as menancing because he's nonchalant and matter of fact about everything.
I think Morrissey is a very good actor. And is doing a very good job. They are approaching the Governor differently in the series as opposed to the comics. In the comics when you meet the Governor he is in his final form. There was a back story put out later on the Governor (Rise of the Governor and The Road to Woodbury). SPOILER he’s actually Brian Blake, he stole his brother’s name after he died. Anyway by the time Rick and him meet in the comics, the Governor is “the Governor” pretty much a one dimensional maniacal, etc. person. The series is trying to find him kinda halfway to his end state. And it seems to also want to make him more, politician like, more charismatic, Jim Jones like. Not so one dimensional, at least yet. He may get to his comic book self or maybe not??
 
I really don't care what other people have to say about season 1, 2 or 3. I don't care that other people have waited to see Woodbury. And I don't care what's in a comic book. I stopped reading those when I was 13. I watched the show because people thought I'd like it and I did....and now, I don't like it as much and I've outlined why.
Well you were the one who brought up what other people thought. And I'm not alone in this from what I read on other boards.
So I guess you do care somewhat.

Like I said, if you don't like what was in the comic books, or you don't like it now, you might as well move on, cause that's what it is based on. Just trying to spare you some frustration. I haven't read them either, never really read comic books.


I like Hershel's character. I like how he was the alpha dog on his farm with an unreal vision of what the rest of the landscape was like, then how we saw him learn what the real world was like and defer to Rick . He kept people alive but in a more "believeable" way for me. I think the Governor scenes with his daughter were funny and poorly acted. Putting on the music, singing to her, combing a piece of her scalp off while she's hissing and gnashing at him? that was bad.

You do realize having the Governor and Hershel both keep dead relatives alive was meant to show the similarities and show people how if you despise one you should despise the other, right? Or if you have sympathy for one you should have sympathy for the other? Or if not, how you are hypocritical? No, you probably missed that.

It was done very well. Morrissey is a very good actor. Maybe you haven't seen too many actors either? Or stuff may just beyond your grasp?
 
This was on Grantland today about Breaking Bad. Describes the logic and thought out aspect of the show way better than I could have ever hoped to.
Spoiler alert, but its very early in the series...
----------------------------
I'm honestly not sure if this episode of Breaking Bad is considered the show's "leap" episode by TV critics at large, but it was the first of what would be many times that Vince Gilligan's obsessively cause-and-effect-driven Greek tragedy caused me to throw my hands over my face — both from shock, and because it was so smart I was afraid my brain would fall out of my mouth. The entire sequence with Krazy-8 in the basement, with a still mostly innocent Walt agonizing over the decision to kill him ("Pros: It's the moral thing to do. Cons: He'll kill your entire family if you let him go") is great, riveting stuff, but I'm talking specifically about THE PLATE. After a long heart-to-heart over beers about cancer and baby furniture, Walter believes he's bonded with Krazy-8; he sees his humanity, he has hope for a world where even the most murderous drug runners can solve their conflicts non-violently. He resolves to set him free, and goes upstairs to get the key to the U-lock. But as he's throwing the empties in the trash, he notices something that only the detail-obsessed Walter would notice — a piece is missing from the shards of the broken plate on which he served Krazy-8's cheese-and-mayo sandwich earlier. A piece shaped conveniently like a shiv.
The rest is history — Krazy-8 meets his end and Walter learns never to let his heart soften toward his enemies again. What's great about the scene is that it's both a metaphor for Gilligan's storytelling style (if there's a piece missing, that's not an oversight on the part of the writers — it will come back and try to murder you later) and the real catalyst for Walter's moral downfall. The deeply human moments, no matter how thoughtfully drawn, are eventually choked by the U-lock of practical inevitabilities, which is what has made Breaking Bad equal parts intellectually mind-blowing but emotionally heart-blowing.
 
.-.
This was on Grantland today about Breaking Bad. Describes the logic and thought out aspect of the show way better than I could have ever hoped to.
Spoiler alert, but its very early in the series...
----------------------------
I'm honestly not sure if this episode of Breaking Bad is considered the show's "leap" episode by TV critics at large, but it was the first of what would be many times that Vince Gilligan's obsessively cause-and-effect-driven Greek tragedy caused me to throw my hands over my face — both from shock, and because it was so smart I was afraid my brain would fall out of my mouth. The entire sequence with Krazy-8 in the basement, with a still mostly innocent Walt agonizing over the decision to kill him ("Pros: It's the moral thing to do. Cons: He'll kill your entire family if you let him go") is great, riveting stuff, but I'm talking specifically about THE PLATE. After a long heart-to-heart over beers about cancer and baby furniture, Walter believes he's bonded with Krazy-8; he sees his humanity, he has hope for a world where even the most murderous drug runners can solve their conflicts non-violently. He resolves to set him free, and goes upstairs to get the key to the U-lock. But as he's throwing the empties in the trash, he notices something that only the detail-obsessed Walter would notice — a piece is missing from the shards of the broken plate on which he served Krazy-8's cheese-and-mayo sandwich earlier. A piece shaped conveniently like a shiv.
The rest is history — Krazy-8 meets his end and Walter learns never to let his heart soften toward his enemies again. What's great about the scene is that it's both a metaphor for Gilligan's storytelling style (if there's a piece missing, that's not an oversight on the part of the writers — it will come back and try to murder you later) and the real catalyst for Walter's moral downfall. The deeply human moments, no matter how thoughtfully drawn, are eventually choked by the U-lock of practical inevitabilities, which is what has made Breaking Bad equal parts intellectually mind-blowing but emotionally heart-blowing.
I probably will watch it someday. When I get some time. I've had lots of people tell me it's very good.
 
I have been reading that this series strays alot from the comic book? Any readers of the comic book on here? (Please no spoilers, though).

It's one thing to me if the writers are keeping true to the comic book. But if some of these horrid story lines are from the show's writers? Yikes.
 
I have been reading that this series strays alot from the comic book? Any readers of the comic book on here? (Please no spoilers, though).

It's one thing to me if the writers are keeping true to the comic book. But if some of these horrid story lines are from the show's writers? Yikes.
I haven't read the comics. (I understand if you quit reading here) But, I've read about them and some of the differences. Most of the main story lines and characters are from the comics. But some things are changed around.

Like the Dixon brothers are not in the comics at all. A great addition by the writers/producers/show runners I think most people can agree. I assume by spoilers you are talking future stuff that might happen in the series (if not stop reading if you get this far)? I know Dale made it all the way to the prison in the comics, and Hershel didn't go to the prison at least not initially. Some things are very different. In the comics, Sophie was much older, and is still alive. There was no CDC in the comics, which I thought worked pretty well. The prisoners were around a lot longer in the comics. But for the most part the farm, the prison, Woodbury, were all pulled from the comics.

Kirkman, the guy who wrote the comics is one of the producers on the series. So he does get some input into how it's adapted. But he doesn't mind changes. In fact sometimes he loves the changes. Wishes he had thought of them himself.

If there are any comic readers, I would love to hear what you think of the series.
 
Like I said, if you don't like what was in the comic books, or you don't like it now, you might as well move on, cause that's what it is based on. Just trying to spare you some frustration. I haven't read them either, never really read comic books.

I appreciate you trying to look out for my television viewing interests, but I'll probably just continue watching and make that decision on my own.

You do realize having the Governor and Hershel both keep dead relatives alive was meant to show the similarities and show people how if you despise one you should despise the other, right? Or if you have sympathy for one you should have sympathy for the other? Or if not, how you are hypocritical? No, you probably missed that.

I don't have a problem with keeping the walkers alive. The scenes with the Governor and his daughter were poorly acted and comedic. The scene at the end of season 2 with the barn opening and Shane opening up the slaughter was probably the best scene of the entire catalog so far. Plus, Hershel was clueless on what the outside world was like. He wasn't brushing pieces of scalp off his daughter's head as she staggered out with that bag on her head with that music in the background. So cheesy.

It was done very well. Morrissey is a very good actor. Maybe you haven't seen too many actors either? Or stuff may just beyond your grasp?

We have a pretty clear disagreement on what "good acting" is, my friend. The Governor is a hack and so is his girlfriend, Andrea. You're just going to have to accept that I feel that way.
 
I appreciate you trying to look out for my television viewing interests, but I'll probably just continue watching and make that decision on my own.
I do what I can. And fair enough. Just seems silly to me watch something you have sooooo many problems with. But whatever.

I don't have a problem with keeping the walkers alive. The scenes with the Governor and his daughter were poorly acted and comedic. The scene at the end of season 2 with the barn opening and Shane opening up the slaughter was probably the best scene of the entire catalog so far. Plus, Hershel was clueless on what the outside world was like. He wasn't brushing pieces of scalp off his daughter's head as she staggered out with that bag on her head with that music in the background. So cheesy.
Not cheesy at all. And Hershel was not as mentally broken as the Governor, although they did similar things.

We have a pretty clear disagreement on what "good acting" is, my friend. The Governor is a hack and so is his girlfriend, Andrea. You're just going to have to accept that I feel that way.
I guess you can think that, but you are wrong. And obviously don't know much about acting. Because most viewers, most people who vote for awards, most people who hire actors don't agree with you. But you can hang out on the island by yourself if you want. You just kinda look silly doing it.
 
I do what I can. And fair enough. Just seems silly to me watch something you have sooooo many problems with. But whatever.


Not cheesy at all. And Hershel was not as mentally broken as the Governor, although they did similar things.


I guess you can think that, but you are wrong. And obviously don't know much about acting. Because most viewers, most people who vote for awards, most people who hire actors don't agree with you. But you can hang out on the island by yourself if you want. You just kinda look silly doing it.

It's awesome how you can be so right about things that are purely opinion. That must be so cool.
 
.-.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,636
Messages
4,587,093
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom