OT: walking dead

[Deepster]

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?

 

[meyers7]

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?

 

[Deepster]

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.

 

[Dogdeacon]

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 .

 

[meyers7]

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.

 

[Deepster]

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? Sweet jesus that was bad.

 

[meyers7]

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??

 

[meyers7]

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? Sweet jesus 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?

 

[Dogdeacon]

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.

 

[meyers7]

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.

 

[huskysupporter]

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.

 

[meyers7]

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.

 

[Deepster]

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.

 

[meyers7]

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.

 

[Deepster]

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.

 

[meyers7]

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

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know anything about it.

 

[Deepster]

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know anything about it.

If I ever need to know anything, I'll check with you first. I'm sure you can tell me what the right answer is...

 

[huskysupporter]

I don't think Andrea is a bad actress, although I think there is a whole heck of a lot of overacting on her part at times (and other castmates. i.e Rick). The actor who plays the governor is not good at all. Again, could be the writing, but the role is poorly acted.

I have continued to watch this season, despite it being poor (every show has a poor season. My favorite tv series of all time is the Sopranos, and Season 4 was terrible). I am sure the last two episodes will action packed. Just stinks having to watch many subpar episodes to get to it.

 

[meyers7]

If I ever need to know anything, I'll check with you first. I'm sure you can tell me what the right answer is...

I'll do what I can.

 

[meyers7]

I don't think Andrea is a bad actress, although I think there is a whole heck of a lot of overacting on her part at times (and other castmates. i.e Rick). The actor who plays the governor is not good at all. Again, could be the writing, but the role is poorly acted.

I have continued to watch this season, despite it being poor (every show has a poor season. My favorite tv series of all time is the Sopranos, and Season 4 was terrible). I am sure the last two episodes will action packed. Just stinks having to watch many subpar episodes to get to it.

You'd be in a minority here. Most people, if they think there was a poor season, consider the 1st half of Season 2 to be the poorest.

If you think Morrissey is a poor actor, well can't help you there. Most people are gonna question that opinion too.

(at least you don't consider him the "worst actor ever" )

 

[Deepster]

Wow. 95% of the episode showing the Governor and Andrea. Awesome.

 

[meyers7]

Wow. 95% of the episode showing the Governor and Andrea. Awesome.

Told you.

 

[Deepster]

***SPOILERS***


1) Did they really expect anyone to believe the Governor was actually dead? Poorly written and predictable.
2) Andrea getting grabbed by a walker up against the tree? They aren't ninjas. Found that poorly written as well.
3) I knew she'd be in the chair.

This episode was like a scene from Friday the 13th: Part 7 or something. A waste of an hour. No character development. No story advancement.

 

[UConn990411]

Overall, I've found Season 3 to be pretty good (at the very least, it's been dreadful), but last night's episode was dreadful.

Even allowing for suspension of disbelief (which you need to do...a lot...this season), I found myself thinking last night's episode was both predictable and absurd. Somehow the Governor magically knew exactly where to find Andrea, and he tracked her to that building with ease at night time. And you knew the Governor was somehow escaping those 40 zombies with no ammunition, but that didn't make it any less stupid when he caught Andrea at the end.

The entire second half of this season has felt extremely dragged out. That makes for less-than-ideal TV.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I haven't seen last night's episode yet, but I had a random theory about the show when my wife wondered how I could watch that and then go to bed right after (I can, not her so we ended up watching DVRd CBS Sunday Morning).

Maybe the majority of people watching WDead want purely indulgent suspend your disbelief fantasy and therefore don't care about it being realistic? I've come to think the show is best playing to its most appealing strength with action & gore. But perhaps also simple/basic good v evil storylines are better received than detailed cause and effect developments? No one wants to see characters that make a simple mistake (Rick meets the Governor without vetting the location) get immediately annihiliated. We don't want to know that failure to prep and be a survivalist spells certain doom, instead let's watch some random people making ho-hum everyday often flawed choices try and deal.

This might go back to why The Road couldn't be a good movie and was such a good but bleak book. That book was really, really realistic and it brought you into an unimitigatably harsh apocalpytic reality. Everything was gray and black, nothing could grow and everyone alive was either trying to steal, kill or eat you. It really felt real, was incredibly depressing and scared the living crap out of you. Other than that, great book!

So back to Walking Dead. Simply put people don't want the show to be realistic because that would be too scary. Its much more watchable as a theoretical apocaplypse world that doesn't give you nightmares because its very easy to debunk everything as fantasy and sleep peacefully.