I think this was filler , if I didn't see this particular episode I seriously doubt that anything in next weeks show or the weeks after would be confusing because I didn't see 412 "Still". To me that is the definition of filler, not that it didn't add to the story or to the characters but nothing essential happens to advance the plot or to advance the characters that couldn't somewhat be assumed.

I'm not saying it was bad, and filler adds meat to the ongoing story. Rounds it out adds depth and makes it better. Filler does not mean bad or a waste, but let's not pretend that this was a must see episode to understand or enjoy the ongoing story. The only real complaint that I've seen is that too much time was spent without enough being accomplished.

I watch this show (or any show or movie) to be entertained. In that regard "Still" was a very good episode as I was entertained. But at this point in time you could remove 412 in its entirety and the season would not miss much. Hence the belief that it was filler.

 

Just a question, not attacking you, but why is it so bad they only developed two characters? I very well could be wrong, but it seems your main problem is the episode only featured 2 characters. Not that it failed to develop any more.

In my opinion, they focused on two characters that really needed it.

 

Thanks, Danger Bunny, for the points you made. Let me say, first of all, that I enjoy virtually every episode of TWD. Maybe less if the episode is about characters that I don't currently find all that interesting, and I did get a bit bored on the farm, like everybody else, but mostly, I think they are all pretty good. Reading all these posts, I find myself wondering what story are you talking about towards which nothing was "accomplished"? What is the plot you are worried is not being advanced? I'm wondering if it is relevant that I have never read the comics - didn't even know about the comics for the first season or so, so all I ever expected was a show about how people survive in the ZA. If it shows them surviving physically, cool. Explores how they deal with it emotionally, cool. Shows how they lose loved ones, nice. Shows how they deal with surviving alone, that's good. Shows how they work together as a group to find food and shelter, great. Explores the reasons why people decide to hook up and be a couple, that's good stuff, too. I could go on, but you get the point. All that said, I think a show in the other extreme, say where each episode was about a totally different person or set of people with no connection to characters from other episodes, and therefore, no over-arching story to it, would have been too boring to watch after a short while. Investment in the characters and some sort of progression towards goals is what we all need in order to enjoy TWD at all, but I just have to wonder, why must every bit of a show be about accomplishing something towards a plot? Don't we have time to have side stories that are compelling in their own right, even if it is true that they do nothing to move the "plot" forward? What's the big hurry? Are you anxious for the over-arching story to be told and for the show to end?

On a more specific note, how un-fun it would have been to have Beth want to search for food and supplies. People do that on this show all the time. I think it was perfect for her character/emotional state to want alcohol (or to just want a mission to get Daryl moving, as several have suggested). And it was a perfect vehicle to get Daryl to break out of his shell and get emotional.

 

I agree...very good points. And didn't Daryl's mother die because she was an alcoholic and wound up burning to death in a fire? (That's what I seem to remember.)
Ironically, I too grew up with a parent who abused alcohol, and (coming full circle) we - my siblings and I - are currently facing the problem once again as my now elderly dad has begun drinking to excess again and been causing all sorts of problems with the VON, with paramedics who have to respond every time he pushes his 'lifeline' button (apparently he pushes it whenever he gets drunk), and he is driving my oldest brother, the one sibling left who lives in his area, absolutely around the bend because of it. Anyway, yep, I've seen it too, and can relate.

 

This is just a nonsense response:

"I don't like popcorn because the kernel husks stick in my teeth."

"The kernel husks are SUPPOSED to stick in your teeth. The only conclusion I can come to is that you hate black people..."

-------


We can argue fact, someone will be right. We can argue opinion, it can be interesting to see how others think. Telling others what they think or like is dirty pool.

Hey, I know that guy!!

Nah, but i would probably complain if I took the guided tour and they spent half the time I paid for explaining how the fixtures in the bathroom work. Now, I'm well aware of the importance of relieving yourself and cleaning up after, but a lecture, demonstration, written and practical exams on it would be overkill in my opinion.

Who knows though, maybe someone like yourself would show up to explain that museums aren't about some glorified arts and crafts, but they're actually about good hygiene.

-------

Listen, I half agree with you (dishonest debate tactics aside). I agree (and have said repeatedly in this thread) that character development, action and filler are all crucial to this series. I just occasionally have a personal issue with the proportions.

I do believe you're outright wrong, though, in saying the show is all about the characters' thoughts and actions. Some shows are like that. Seinfeld was like that. An episode of Seinfeld could start with Kramer exiting the space shuttle after a mission in orbit and never mention it again and not break the show. You know how you can most easily identify whether a show is purely character driven? No one speculates on what's going to happen in the future. That's because it doesn't matter. Most of the shows of this ilk are sitcoms and cop shows.

Now, TWD is a story about what this particular group does after the end of the world as we know it. Yes, it is revolutionary for its genre because it bothers developing characters at all, but the situation and how it affects the group is what drives the show.

The real issue is some of us "get it" quickly and feel like the show should leave the horse alone once it stops breathing and voice our dissatisfaction when it doesn't. Others, apparently, take longer to catch on and don't understand the problem (and ironically, assume the complaints are because the first group didn't "get' the episode).

As a hypothetical, let's pretend the show wanted to show how class warfare could erupt in the ZA. Let's say a couple of our characters stumble into a golf course country club.

They see a stiff with a sign on her that says "Rich Bitch" - it could be that someone offed her because they resented her wealth.

"Welcome to the dogtrot"

Daryl spends the entire time looting useless money because people who grew up poor are so stupid and dishonest that even in the post apocalyptic world, they'll take any opportunity to loot things that are of almost no use to them.

He then decides that throwing darts at pictures of rich people makes more sense than throwing them at the target (I'm starting to get a hint of where they're going).

Sheltered Beth who grew up in comfort finds new clothes and poor dishonest stupid Daryl ruins them.

Once he's on board with her plan, Daryl shows Beth that rich people don't know how to drink and takes her to the shiner's shack to show her how people who aren't superficial posers roll. (I believe they're pointing out how different social strata act differently and the deep seated resentment this difference can cause. Damn I'm intellectual!!)

See the point? It's not about action (in fact, TWD routinely does such a poor job with action scenes that I'd almost prefer a complete absence of it in the series). It's about the way the show producers, instead of making a point and moving on, repeat the point over and over to stretch the episode.

In the pudding episode, they wanted us to see that Carl is not as survival ready as he thought so he falls on his ass. He moves along and falls on his ass again. He finds a locked door and tries to break it down and falls on his ass. He heads upstairs and falls on his ass. - You see a pattern? Sure, you can argue that it is important character development for Carl to realize he's not as competent as he thought, but half an episode devoted to him literally falling on his ass in various situations is overkill.

What constitutes filler is purely subjective. Here's my take:

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, IMO anything that doesn't lead to the furthering of the story is filler.

Character development is not necessarily filler. Filler, though, can be character development (as an example, Daryl munching out on snake so fast he's constantly needing to pick bones out of his mouth while Beth delicately and neatly eats the same snake). It's filler because it does nothing to advance the story and the scene's absence would not have left a hole that confused people.

Anyway, if when you were in school you felt that you'd have received a better education if the teacher could spend more one-on-one time to review the lessons, you may truly enjoy the overly drawn out scenes. If, on the other hand, you were falling asleep because "Good Lord!! How many times is she going to cover the same material?!?", then you might be more appreciative of them hitting you across the face with an idea only once or twice...

 

Perhaps you should try reading my post because I didn't put any words in your mouth at all. I said "there was a ton of character development" in reply to your saying "the relative lack of character development".

Now your changing your point, you were complaining that there wasn't enough character development and now you're complaining that there weren't enough characters developed. I can foresee this quickly devolving into a quality vs. quantity argument, perhaps we should drop it.

Good thing I didn't do that then, isn't it?

This is a discussion group where we are here to discuss, not just listen to each others monologs.

When your stated reason for disliking an episode is clearly an invalid criticism, I'm going to point it out. You claim you didn't like this episode because of its lack of character development when there was clearly a lot of character development, that indicates to me that you're being disingenuous. If you're not being disingenuous then please explain your position again, because I didn't understand you the first time.

 

A popcorn analogy is an unusual analogy, too bad it's such a bad analogy. A better popcorn analogy would be:
"I don't dislike popcorn because the husks get stuck in my teeth, I dislike popcorn because it's blue".
"But, popcorn isn't blue. It sounds to me like you're trying to deflect attention away from the real reason you don't like popcorn (i.e. because it gets stuck in your teeth) by making stuff up".

Telling someone you don't believe them isn't telling them what they think.

re: Being proud of how quickly you can see everything in a museum.

Bathroom fixtures? what the heck are you talking about? I'm talking about the exhibits in the museum, and while you may be satisfied zipping through the museum ("painting of a house, painting of a rock, just a bunch of scribbles, statue of a chick with no arms") giving each piece little more than a courtesy glance. Those who enjoy spending time examining the details of each piece, enjoying the subtleties will shake their heads and wonder why you even bothered coming in...

That you brought up taking a guided tour, speaks volumes.

So you enjoy character development, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the action?

I defy you to show me where I said that... I did say that although the show has action scenes the show is primarily a character study. The show is about examining the characters as they try to survive in the aftermath of the zombie apocalypse. The show isn't about the zombie apocalypse it's about the survivors -- Kirkman (I think it was Kirkman) has even said that the title "The Walking Dead" is referring to the survivors, not the zombies.

What? Seinfeld wasn't a character study. Seinfeld was a situation comedy.

Oh this should be good...

I was right. No one speculates on what's going to happen in the future in those shows because they are episodic. You do wonder about the future in the Walking dead because it's a serial.

Now I'm just repeating myself, the point of the show isn't the events that happen, it's how the events affect the characters.

The real issue is some of you are overly concerned with the events and not the effect the events have on the characters.

Since the depiction of the class warfare at the country club was there highlight the differences between Beth and Daryl, let's not.

The "entire time"? It was three seconds of screen time. I wasn't going to comment on this part but I just couldn't let that one go...

I've responded to this argument in the threads for that episode, I'm not going to repeat myself.

And that's where you go wrong because the show isn't about the story, it's about the characters, it's not about the events. It's not about how they manage to survive on their own and reunite, it's about how losing the prison and losing each other affects each of them. As long as you remain more interested in the events then how the events affect the characters, you're going to continue to be disappointed in the show.

Sigh.

Nice ad hominem attack. And yes I'm being sarcastic.

 

All analogies are bad. If you couldn't poke holes in them, they wouldn't be analogies. The purpose of this one was just to point out that when someone says, "I prefer X", responding about how they're in love with Y is nonsensical.

Umm, didn't we determine that you not only think I'm lying, but you know the real reason that I'm either unaware of or afraid to admit? The fact that you know a stranger's mind better than the person himself would be pretty impressive if you weren't full of shit about it and just assigning people the thoughts that you'd prefer to counter.

No, I can appreciate the art without being shown a 10 hour video of the artist creating the piece. A couple of minutes and a little info is great. Dragging it out beyond that is tiresome, especially when the dragging out is being done in those phases of the tour that have nothing to do with the art. Again, it's an analogy and they have holes...

Yeah, damned museum screwed me over...

What is your fixation on freaking action?!?! I enjoy character development when it's done at a pace that can keep a reasonably intelligent person interested. About the 4th time a show hammers home the same idea, it gets annoying. It has nothing to do with action. I just said I think this show's claim to fame is character development (along with the acting) and that I think their idea of action is not good.

But I get it, I really do. If you accept that those of us who would prefer more implication and less blatant shoving it in our faces actually enjoy character development, you wouldn't get to argue that we're wrong. If there's no debate, you can't win the internet debate championship. On the other hand, if we're mouth breathing explosion junkies, you get to educate us on what the show is about.

You say the show is about the driving force's effect on the characters. I paraphrase that into the show is all about the characters' thoughts and actions and you puff out your chest and defy me to show where you said that? Really?

Seinfeld was as much a character study as TWD (more, I'd say). If you watch it, it almost seem like, like the entire purpose of the show was to see how the situations affect the characters and the situations themselves are irrelevant.

You wonder because there is a future - a point B to the point A we're at now. Y'know, it's almost like the series is telling a comprehensive story instead of just being a device to introduce and build characters.

I can respect that opinion. Mine is that instead of accepting that all writing, on any scripted show in history, has ups and downs, you'd prefer to rationalize the downs into an up and decide that if people disagree they don't have your eye for subtlety.

Yes, I exaggerated when I said the entire time. That means they didn't beat us over the head repeatedly with the concept of divergent economic backgrounds. (Sarcasm there, BTW)

Fair enough.

OK, you've converted me. The story is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that a group is trying to survive the apocalypse, it only matters what they're thinking and saying while they try to survive the apocalypse. That we've followed this group from the outset to the murky future is not a story. It's just some people we're getting to know. Hell, it could be Gilligan's Island II. Damn, if they dropped this whole end of the world scenario, we could just make it an improv show where the director tells them to act without the crutches of zombies, diseases and cyclops. But, do you think those who are not *ahem* as cultured as we might miss the story?

I'm not disappointed in the show. I enjoyed this episode. I just would have preferred that they cut some of what I consider filler and replace with something that either contributes to character development or progresses the story ( know, it's not a story... but really - there was a disaster, unprepared strangers banded together to cope, various challenges made this coping difficult and some characters were changed by those challenges - I'm just being devil's advocate here, but if you look at it from a lowbrow angle, doesn't it kinda sorta seem like the show is telling a story?).

Not an ad hominem. You know me well enough to tell me I'm lying and am actually thinking something other than what I'm saying. Surprise! I have the same super power and I know you well enough to know you struggled through school... or it could be that we're both full of shit in assigning assumptions to people we don't know.


-------

The bottom line here is I believe the show adds more filler than necessary. You feel that the extra filler is hearty and makes it more satisfying. My asking you (or your asking me) why the other feels that way is fine. Either of us saying the other is just wrong about something that is completely subjective is the kind of arrogance that causes freaking holy wars. There's no quantifying taste and taste is exactly what we have been discussing.

I have zero problem with someone having different taste. That's why I inhabit forums. If I just wanted my own opinions repeated back to me, I'd record myself and listen to it. Differing opinions is great. Telling someone what THEY think or do as opposed to what YOU think or do, though, that's troll material (I'm not calling you a troll, I'm just saying that is one of their favorite plays to get people annoyed).

 

I enjoyed this episode alot, but it is ****ing bad writing because this episode would've been actually SUPER good if they didn't only focus for either alcohol or only for beth and daryl.

 

A very thoughtful post. Here though, I agree with the show not being totally a character show like Seinfeld, but otoh it isn't a totally situational show (like the movie Predator that I was dragged to see once upon a time either). It's strength is allowing for character development within a situational setting - basically it's a good middle of the road compromise. I don't think the situation is MORE important to the show than the character development.

Remember that viewers of the show are NOT a homogenous group though, and will perceive different things from each of the above examples, and some things that fall flat with some viewers will resonate powerfully with others. For example, with Daryl looting, I was trying to decide if he was just looting for looting's sake, or if he had some reason for collecting those particular items (apparently not). I mean they ARE 2 years into the ZA, if he wanted to hoard cash we likely would have seen this characteristic in him show up before now, why is he doing this all of a sudden? This struck me as poor writing, in that the writers bashed us with a hammer on this one, rather than nudging us in the direction they wanted us to go. With the throwing darts, this seemed to me like he had some common feelings with the workers who rebelled, and made me wonder if he'd act out against Beth for having a stable family and comfortable life where he had neither, just like the workers did in the club. On the moonshine, I thought it ironic that Daryl HATED his childhood and his dysfunctional family, but when push came to shove, that's where he felt most comfortable, and was what he returned to. At the end of the episode, he consciously turns his back on his prior existence. On Beth's clothes, I saw that as Daryl being an insensitive MAN who didn't realize or care about Beth's feelings and how much better she must have felt getting something new and clean to wear. He didn't even say sorry or offer to go back and replace them. I wouldn't even imagine this scene having to do with her being "rich" and him being "poor".

My point is that if several other people posted on your examples of scenes, they likely would have come away with several different opinions of what things meant, and which they liked or didn't. If the show only put in ONE example of something, a large audience would have some people miss it completely, and for others it would not resonate with them, and not be seen as a good show. While it may seem like beating a dead horse, I'd say it's actually a method of effective communication with a large and diverse viewing audience (plus, it does fill up time, LOL!)

On this I agree completely. That whole half hour was a painful waste of time IMO. Some people must have liked it, but I thought it was AWFUL.

You know, you could make the whole TWD series to date be a 1 hour episode if you wanted to. Show the collapse of society. bunch of people die. They fight to secure a prison and get kicked out and dispersed.... The next episode could show Carl as a leader rebuilding a town and his daughter retaking the entire east coast, and the third episode could be America II landing on the moon. There wouldn't be any filler, that's for sure!

Of course you wouldn't know anything about the characters, either, and IMO that wouldn't be a very interesting show. So I don't see character development as filler, at least as I believe you are describing it. Filler to me would be something like Carl discussing with Michonne his trip to Disneyland, and there being minutes worth of scenes of people riding on rollercoasters, etc. For while the importance of the trip to him IS character development, the long footage of rollercoasters is in no way related to the show. THAT to me is true filler. Or since you find more than one example beneficial for you , "filler" by your definition would also be action, such as showing a character killing zombies over and over and over. OK, we get it, there are a lot of zombies out there, and they need to be killed. Showing Michonne decapitating 50 of them? Just action "filler" to avoid having to produce storyline. My point being *anything* one doesn't like can be called filler, but as long as it's reasonably related to the show probably shouldn't be.

IMVHO, of course.

 

I'm not trying to be an ass or contrarian for the sake of it (not that I'm not, sometimes ), but DO the zombies matter? Wouldn't this show be exactly the same if it was about a bunch of American civilians trying to get out of a hostile Iran on foot? Maybe one of them would have the idea to blend in and take jobs, only to be discovered and kicked out of their compound/workplace? Or like you say, a group of people stranded on Gilligan's Island, trying to survive without supplies and battling off hostile natives. It isn't REALLY the ZA that makes TWD good, but the development of the characters reacting to a pretty standard group of plots, conflicts, and stressors that would work in most any situation.

 

It made me like & understand both characters better, knowing they were from different (& in Daryl's case, effed up) lifestyles, but still be able to accept each other as they were & are.

 

The "story" of this episode was out of place, as if it written by someone who had never watched TWD before (and if it was even worth telling, it was shown far too late in the series) Three years into a ZA, after being routed out of one's "safe" prison home, is not the time a character is going to decide to resolve his childhood issues (Which, by the way, had been well addressed in previous episodes). It's not why, three years into a ZA, class warfare would raise its head three years into an epidemic which has leveled the playing field and left too few humans in it to have classes. Or is Class Warfare now going to a part of the story? [I sure hope not] Like Rick said in Season 1 in a different context, there are no black people and white people, only dark meat and white meat]

o me, what would be on the mind of every character after the trauma of what happened is WHY did they lose the prison; What did they do wrong? Who do they blame (including themselves)? Do they even want to find the other survivors and start over? Is there anywhere safe now? WHAT are they going to do? Where are they going to go? On Darryl's mind would be why he gave the Governor (who killed his brother and had twice tried to kill everyone at the prison) a free pass (mentioned only once) and even talked Michonne out of continuing to look for him? Why he gave Rick a free pass as a farmer? WHY they didn't have patrols, snipers, or other adequate protection at that prison? Whether his good friend Carol survived and where she is? Whether his good friend Rick survived and where is? ETC. NOT whether he was "low class" in a world that hasn't existed for three years now and never will exist again. What would be on Beth's mind is that her father's head is out there, not "put down", and his body is not buried; her sister is out there on the run; she abandoned (not saying on purpose) Judith, who was entrusted to her care. ETC.

Whether you call it filler, character development, loved it or hated it, found it exciting or found it boring -- it was just out of step with the bigger story.

 

Why do people continue to belabor this? Pretty sure if I saw my old man get his head chopped off, lost my sister in a war zone, and had the my home destroyed, you know, i might want a damn drink myself. Seems like a perfectly rational act to me.

 

Beth's mother died when she was very young, she had an overly protective, overly sheltering and under affectionate father who is a recovering alcoholic and was previously abusive. She had an F'ed up background too.

 

No analogy is perfect, some analogies are good and some are bad. Your popcorn analogy was in the latter category.

You professed that Z was why you disliked X, not Y. But since Z isn't true it leads me to believe that, despite your claim otherwise, it really is Y because you're the one who brought up Y. The louder you profess that it's not Y, the more it looks like it is Y. If it's not Y then give us a Z that isn't untrue.

I think lying is too harsh a word which is why it's not a word I've used. Do I think you're being disingenuous, stretching the truth, playing devils advocate? Yes. The more outrage you have over "being called a liar" the more it looks like you're over compensating for being caught being less than truthful.

Analogies will certainly have holes in them when you take them and wildly twist them around and add ridiculous aspects to them. My original comment was "I get the feeling you're the type of person who would take pride in how quickly they were able to see everything in a museum". You've added in lectures about bathroom fixtures and 10 hours videos... [shakes head] My original comment stands, you've said nothing that would make me reconsider my opinion of you.

Museum tours have two purposes. To give someone new to the museum an overview of its collection, or to allow someone who isn't interested in the collection the ability to say "they were there". That you keep bring up tours leads me to believe you would be in the second group.

I'm sure you'll disagree but I am a reasonably intelligent person and the episode was easily capable of keeping me interested. That it failed to keep you interested leads me to believe that you missed all the subtlety of the episode. The fact that you keep harping on how they need to "drive the plot, drive the plot, I get it they're looking for booze, get to something happening, move the story forward, get rid of all this sitting and talking crap, they need to drive the plot", is what leads me to believe that you crave action.

I really don't think you do.

When you change what I'm saying by paraphrasing me then belittle me for saying it, I'm going to call you on it.

Seinfeld was a character study, of sorts. It was more a reflection of and commentary on society -- as is most (all?) of Jerry Seinfeld's stand up. What Seinfeld didn't have was character development, the characters were exactly the same in the first episode as the last. You could put the entire series on shuffle and with no issues.

Read my previous posts, I'm not against criticising the show. But when your critique is that not enough Stuff and Thangs happened and you ignore the intense character study, the exploration of the character's state of mind, motivations and emotional states then yes, I'm going to point out that you've missed the "subtlety".

[bunch of sarcastic crap deleted]

It was an ad hominem, out of nowhere you insulted my intelligence. It could pretty much be a text book example of an ad hominen attack.

The bottom line here is what you call filler, is what the show is all about -- the producers have said basically the exact same thing. It wasn't filler, it was the meat of the show. That it didn't (!!! imperfect analogy warning !!!) have enough fat in it for you, doesn't make it filler.

Telling you how I feel you are coming across is not telling you what you think. It's telling you how you appear to others, or at least to me.

I'd say you're clearly a "Just the facts Ma'am" kind of guy so I don't think I'll ever be able to get you to understand where I'm coming from so I think I'll just drop it here. You can have the last word if you'd like.

 

Eh? Hershel was never abusive. Other than her mother dying her background is pretty idyllic.

 

It was never stated outright, but it was strongly implied when Hershel was discussing things with Rick at the bar.
You may feel that being overly sheltered by a domineering and controlling father is idyllic, I disagree.

 

Apparently we were watching different shows.

 

I think you're going to find that the entire second half of this season is "out of step with the bigger story".