If an Iranian bite you, you d become one of them ? Hostile Iran once was American civilians peaceful country before ? And why on foot ? They don't have cars in Iran ? Or gas ran out in a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world (and third largest exporter of it) ? LOL

 

It's just my analogy style. I try to get as far from the subject being discussed as possible to try and make the point without the emotional investment the original subject has acquired.

OK, I professed Z is why I disliked X (a pure, completely subjective statement), not Y. YOU decide Z (my opinion) isn't true - in other words, that's not what I really mean, so it must be Y. So, the more times I correct that assumption and repeat that Z is the problem, the more obvious it is that that Y is the real reason? WTF does that mean? Do I need to embrace Z to make you believe it's really Y I'm into?

OK, (another hole riddled analogy coming) so I say I find it strange that people lovingly spend hours a week maintaining a well manicured lawn when that was what their ancestors were forced to do in Feudal Europe by their masters and I think it's like black people in the US lovingly maintaining plots of cotton plants to pick in their back yards. You tell me it's really that fact that I'm destroying insect habitats that bothers me. So, the more times you repeat that and I say, "No, it's the first thing.", the more it makes it look like I'm wrong about how I feel?

Like I said, I know you're not a troll but that is totally troll logic (or at least the logic trolls profess).

I think you think I take you too seriously. I was still talking about the filler in the show. I wasn't defending myself from a hurtful dig, I was explaining that too big a chunk of extraneous activity lessens the experience for me.

OK, reread that. You STILL don't think you're assigning me opinions? You state that tours have 2 purposes. If I bring up tours, it's clear to you that I favor the second purpose. That's more WTF logic.

I'm well aware that you're at least reasonably intelligent. There are plenty of idiots on this (and every active) forum. I wouldn't bother with a back and forth discussion with those because their every reply would be, "IT'S A SHOW ABOUT ZOMBIES!!!!!!!1 LULZ"

As I sarcasmed (what a linguistic innovator I am) before. You're dismissing half of what I said so it's easy for you to "win" versus the other half. I said there was action, character and filler. All are essential to this being a good show. Filler, though, IMO should be limited in the worst case (and used to develop characters in the best). I have no problem with a couple of minutes of filler, but stretching it into half an episode makes the show drag to me.

I didn't belittle you. I pointed out that I paraphrased the same thing (though from a slightly different angle) and you get all righteous wrath about it and defy me to show where you said that. You're either playing word games or reading something into the comment that wasn't intended.

I mostly agree with this point. There was some character development (IMO), but it was certainly minimal. It does, however fit the tone (if not the precise verbiage) of how you described TWD as a study in how characters react to the situation, with the situation being all but moot.

That's the arrogance thing I mentioned before that has you either deliberately or subconsciously deciding that because I disliked something I don't have your refined taste to appreciate it.

What did we learn in the Country Club? We may have been given some foreshadowing that the strife there was the beginning of something bigger, which could contribute to the story (we won't really know unless it later turns out to be the case, or not). That could have been accomplished in a couple of minutes. I could have lived with their adding a couple of minutes of filler. They decided, though, to stretch it to half the episode with filler (beating the dead horse, filler zombie kills (gasp! action as filler, wooo....) and pointless chatter.

Had that filler been used to develop characters, I'd have been fine with it. Maybe have Daryl mention that he knows from experience that the sweet taste of Schnapps can trick people into not realizing the effect of alcohol on their lives, giving us a hint that Merle wasn't the only substance abuser in the clan and a reason for him to have gotten so inexplicably pissed at Bob for grabbing a bottle. Maybe have Beth reminisce about a party where all her friends got silly drinking it and seemed to have a wonderful time, but that she didn't drink because her father was a controlling bastard who would have punished her harshly for his mistake because he'd assume if he was such a weakling she couldn't be nothing but.

Instead, we get a pointless: Is Schnapps good? No!!

So it's not an ad hominem when you do it, but it is when I do it back? OK. I've never been much of a debater so I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the rules.

This is, I think, the core of your issue with my opinion. I believe (through good writing) filler should be made to serve a purpose. You seem to believe that because it's on a good show, the filler already must serve a purpose and that anyone who thinks it doesn't just isn't reading deeply enough into it. Or maybe it's just the word filler you're opposed to. If I change it to "time consuming but less than optimally contributive action and dialogue", could we all just get along?

There's a big difference between telling someone you can't see where they're coming from and deciding that since their thoughts don't resonate with yours that they must be thinking something else.

I appreciate the courtesy. I'll take it: Drywall

I agree completely. What makes TWD special in zombie visual media is that a show set in the backdrop of the zombie apocalypse bothers to have characters, instead of just caricatures of characters (Hell, if they wanted to be all cheesy and traditional, they'd bring in the stereotypical badass with a porn 'stache and a cute chick in shorts... wait).

If the show were all about the zombie apocalypse, it'd be about the group looking for a secure base and realistically implementing a plan for future survival (or driving around bashing zombies, depending on which direction producers wanted to take things). If it were all about the characters only, the series would have started with them in a secure location (like the prison) and spend the entire time showing how they each got there, then end with a rush of zombies killing them all. TWD does a good job of developing characters within the framework of an actual plot.

You're right that different people will get different nuance from the same thing, but they have lately been more into "here's the message we're trying to get across" instead of "here's a situation, take what message you will from it", which I believe is more powerful.

Take Carl killing Jody. If they wanted to spoonfeed us the message that you don't take chances with enemies in the ZA, they'd have had him jump Carl and have everyone lecture him on hesitation in the face of danger after the situation was resolved. If they wanted to spoonfeed us the message that even after the end of the world, life is important and you shouldn't forget it, Carl could have killed him and they'd later discover that Andrea had sent him to help the group and he was just looking for a safe path into the prison to join them.

As it was, they took the more powerful approach and left things ambiguous. The testament to what a brilliant feat of writing it was is that 2 years later, people will STILL argue about it if you give them half a chance.

Apparently what you're really thinking is that you wish there'd been some explosions.

If it were a movie, that would be fine. Plenty of them compress a lifetime into an hour and a half.

Again, I didn't say I was anti filler. Filler is necessary. It's like a palate cleanser to make the next flavor more intense. I just think the difference between average writing and great writing is using that filler to serve that purpose and also having it contribute to other things.

If there's a storyline, filler in my eyes is anything that doesn't contribute to that. Bad filler serves no other purpose than to pass time. Yes, action can be filler, but since it's expensive, fortunately there's only 30 second blocks in the show. If they showed an episode where it was 20 minutes of nonstop Michonne dismembering zombies, yes, I'd feel the same way as 20 minutes of Carl falling on his ass.

Good filler (and I'm probably laying a couple of licks too many on the horse using this example again) is Daryl and Beth eating the snake. It was completely unnecessary to the story. They're living in the woods (for some reason), we could assume they're finding things to eat. It contributes nothing to the plot. It does, though, show without beating us over the head with it the difference in the two characters and how they were raised just by juxtaposing HOW they were eating.

Anyway, here's my impression of average writing versus great writing:

Imagine someone in English class is given the assignment of writing a 2000 word essay on something.

If the person sets out with the goal in mind and gives us 2000 words that all contribute to the overall point of the essay, it has a chance to be great writing. Whether it is is subjective (if the teacher just got out of an abusive relationship with a guy who says "It is what it is..." every other sentence and the student uses that phrase a few times, it could lower the grade - so taste is a big determiner). It also depends on the talent of the writer and other factors. The point, though, is that there's a chance it'll be great.

Now, if the person writes the essay, goes back and counts words and realizes he or she has only written 1300 words, then goes back and looks for phrases that can be replaced with longer phrases. Takes a given point and repeats it 3 times with different verbiage. Throws in a tangent that's not really related, but hell, it's 200 words. There's almost no chance this is going to be great writing.

I just feel like sometimes the writers on TWD are doing the second (substituting time for word count).

 

This could be the worst episode since Prey. Or even Cherokee Rose...

Who knows, maybe in later episodes there'll be something that happens that needed something that happened in this episode as a sort of basis to it?

 

For me, Wheezy Rick and Carl's Quest for Pudding (yes, I'm pretty sure that's the official title of the episode) was the worst since Prey (and maybe the worst since before that one where Shane and Rick were sitting in the cop car talking).

I have no reason but my own impression, but I think they pounded the country club home too hard not to revisit something about it. I think they wasted lots of time doing it, but if I'm wrong about it being revisited, then they really, really wasted time doing it.

 

In a way, I think this is true. It's sort of like the analogies thing - changing the circumstances could create minimal differences or WTF differences.

As you say, looking at things very generally, you have generic plot and character devices. What makes TWD unique is that zombie movies generally don't bother with character devices beyond stereotype.

There have been TV series with good conflict and well fleshed protagonists, but there have never been any set in the zombie apocalypse. If TWD were instead just about a group of people trying to avoid better equipped enemies, it wouldn't be that special.

WOLVERINES!!!

 

Interesting debate, folks. Though it is starting to feel a bit like the farm in here, lol. I do fall on the side of seeing the plot as a means rather than an end, so I do get confused when folks complain that X, Y or Z didn't "do anything to further the story". To me, it is all the story. Furthermore, I think that stories that are interesting in their theme, characters and style are just higher quality pieces of work than stories that rely entirely on plot to keep people interested. In the world of books, movies, etc. I think describing something as "plot-driven" is pretty much code for "crappy".

At any rate, I'd like to offer another word to hopefully help with discussion. Lots of things folks call, "filler", I would call, "color". Things that are in the story for no other reason than to make the show or characters more interesting or entertaining (and thank God it is there). The snake is a great example of this. They could have each been eating their own can of beans instead - Daryl with his face and hands? Beth daintily with a spoon? But the snake bit was more gritty and fun and added color to the scene. Stuff like that makes the show better and more fun to watch, in my opinion.

 

Just people against better equipped people would be "man vs. man" only for both backdrop and plot (like Breaking Bad), whereas the ZA has a lot of "man vs. nature" (the zombies) as a backdrop, and "man vs. man" (fighting the governor) as individual plots within the story.

Look at it more generally. In my Iranian example, the backdrop would be "man vs. nature", dying of thirst having to walk in the desert, sunstroke, etc. A deserted Gilligan's Island? No resources, tools, trapped, the backdrop is "man vs. nature", but in both cases these would be like TWD in that most of the plots would be "man vs. man" - fighting Jihadist groups, or cannibal tribes, whatever. I think that if you were to make a series like these, it would strongly resemble TWD, IF you also made the characters go through the agony of making moral choices like TWD does (man vs. self).

Your Red Dawn example comes close, but the group (at least in the original, I've not seen the remake involving North Korea, LOL!) Oops, that's a tangent. Anyway, the thing is the group was used to being in the mountains around their home and were playing boy scouts. There was never (at least in my hazy memory) any REAL danger that they'd be killed by their environment, the threat was ALWAYS from the Russians. I don't think they had to make any really agonizing moral choices, either.

What *I* think makes TWD unique is like you say, character development in a ZA, but more broadly it's having a show having 1. Character development (really "man vs. self, in that people need to fight internal moral battles, and have their "self" grow and change) within 2. a setting of *deadly* serious man vs. nature component in the ZA and 3. also man vs. man in that they have to fight off other groups with conflicting ideals.

Why doesn't Hollywood make more shows like this? who knows, maybe the great wheel is turning and they soon will. For awhile it was game shows, then reality shows, now maybe.... dramas? If it looks like there's money in it, I'm sure someone will take the chance, or not.

You know, you really have to cut me a bit of slack. When I start up on something, it's hard for me to stop myself, hence the rants. I think I'll have a cookie now.

 

Agreed. The specifics would be different, but the broader issues facing the characters would be similar. Viewed generally, threat from zombies is not that much different from GM plants gone crazy or a disease that makes people nuts or any of a number of forces one might imagine.

Hey! The Cubans were in on it too!! You're right in that nature wasn't an enemy because some of them were accustomed to living in the wild (or camping and practicing skills they would need to live). As far as tough moral choices: What to do with a traitor in the midst, especially when he's trying to save his dad? Leave your dad in the camp or probably get killed trying to break him out? Granted, they didn't belabor them because they only had an hour and a half and the movie was primarily an action movie/exercise in jingoism.

Yeah, I can agree. TWD is (to my knowledge) the first actual TV series that has the man vs lethal nature issue. That sort of thing has generally been the exclusive property of bad movies.

I don't know. There are a couple of reality shows I like (like the original, Survivor), but I'd like to see the genre die for the most part. I also hope I live to see a day when the CSI clones are dead.

There is hope, though. You've got TWD, Justified, Suits, Arrow - all strong shows in different ways.

No cutting of slack necessary. It's the purpose of forums to discuss ad nauseum whatever the forum's subject happens to be. I enjoy friendly debates and "what if" thoroughly. It not only gives me a window into the minds of people who think differently than I, but forces me to attempt to express myself clearly when stating my side of things. All good stuff...

 

I'm glad you asked. Because there's only a few episodes left in the season and a lot of the characters need more time, I want to learn about all the characters, and understand their motivations more. I feel like this gives less time for that. Glenn has been under developed severely ever since the governor rape incident, and I feel we know nothing about Tyreese, Sasha or Bob. Don't think there's much time left in the season to develop all these characters plus three new characters that just joined the show. The show is stretching itself thin and I enjoy it less when I don't understand every single one of it's central characters a little bit better. That's why two characters isn't enough.

I have a question to you too. Do you watch any other TV shows that I mentioned? Do you think Game of Thrones would have better character devleopment if they had episodes where they just focused on 2 under developed characters the episode? Do you think Breaking Bad would have been better with entire episodes without Walt in them to learn more about Marie? Why does the walking dead need to do this when other TV shows, which are abundant with character development, do not need to do so to develop even their minor characters?

Again, I am not singling out these two characters. If the episode was focused on Glenn and Tyreese only, and nothing happend with the plot, I would also be upset that Beth and Daryl would have gotten left in the dust without time to focus on them like they did in this episode. I think they could have done just as much for 4 characters instead of just two, the way countless other TV shows are able to do so.

 

It's funny, a buddy of mine was sometimes fascinated by the literate. We were talking about The Hobbit just after the movie came out and I said something along the lines of, "I haven't watched it. I'm afraid the fact that I absolutely hate Tolkein would taint my opinion of it."

His brother-in-law Mike reads a lot as well. After what I said, my buddy says, "Really? Mike absolutely loves Tolkein. Why do you hate his writing?"

So I go off on this rant about how he never leaves anything to the imagination. Instead of saying there was a scary dragon and allowing the reader's brain to interpret that into what constitutes scary to him or her, he would say "The serpent was 132 feet from nose to tail tip, each 9 inch canine dripped with a noxious venom that then oozed down the fiery red scales that covered the entirety of the dragon's body. The eyes of the dragon were vertically slitted and the color of... and on, and on, and on."

My buddy starts laughing his ass off and falls off the couch onto the floor. Once he's calmed down and wiped his tears I give him the raised eyebrow and he says, "When I asked Mike why he loved Tolkein, he gave almost the same word for word response that you just gave for hating him."

The point is, it's about taste. In books, I can take an author like David Gemmel and plow through one of his novels in about an hour. He gives you enough description to get your imagination going and leaves it at that. I enjoy such an approach to storytelling. Now, take an author like Robert Jordan (who wrote most of the Wheel of Time books) who I once read a critic say could spend 3 pages describing a sneeze and it just feels like he's leading you by the hand.

Generally speaking, TWD has good pacing where they give you enough but allow room for your own mind to make logical leaps. It's just occasionally that the filler (or color) drags to the point that it begins to detract from the experience for me.

 

I liked this one - the drinking game was odd - it highlighted how 'young' Beth is (whatever her age!) and i felt a twinge when she dangles the 'i've never been in jail' bit. When Daryl responds "so that's what you think of me?" those were my thoughts exactly. I was embarrassed for her, and we see how while she's very sweet it comes with the baggage of her naivete

I was very satisfied by Daryl's drunken outburst, nasty and stroppy. That seemed authentic to the character of a downtrodden younger brother of Merle.

i agree about the oddness of the golf club. surely he would have known standing up the grandfather clock was a bad idea, but the rhythm of life in the ZA is unfolding well; the periods of high intensity followed by longer periods of tense waiting.

Looking forward to what's coming though....wondering who will make it and who will come a cropper!

 

I was thinking something similar. That for some people, it must feel like being asked to savor Moby Dick, for others, too much seems like a mindless gore-fest, little better than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or something. But, it hits most people at, or at least near, their taste - which is why it is so popular.

 

I really loved "The Hobbit", and read it several times when young. Not because of or the lack of descriptiveness, but through Tolkein's writing I could really *feel* his love of the English language. I still feel that way today in hindsight. How's that for an odd third perspective?

 

Moby Dick... I've tried several times to make it through Moby Dick, and always end up skipping pages after the first few chapters. Only a different era would allow that book to be published, as though the story is fine the pages and pages of detail are a killer! Ouch!

 

Thanks you for clearing that up. I can definitely understand your point better. I don't really agree, but I totally see where you are coming from. Who knows, when the seasons over I may agree with you if they super gloss over important stuff when they could've taken more time and split halvsies with this one. But I'll wait until the seasons over before jumping to that conclusion. For now I'll just sit back and enjoy what they give me without trying to think what should happen before what they have in mind plays out.

And you asked if I thought Game of Thrones would have better character development if they had episodes where they just focused on 2 under developed characters in the episode. - Unless the writers were inept, yes. I love what the writers do in both shows so I'd probably like it and enjoy the exploration. It just makes the world that I love to lose myself into a richer place. And I'm all for it, no matter the method they use for development. Haven’t watched too much Breaking Bad. But if Rickon was boosted into the main cast, I'd probably enjoy and episode that gave him a lot of time too. So I'm probably not the right person to ask. And when I’m watch a TWD, I’m not worried about what another show did to advance their characters development.

Remember, the show doesn't end after this season. We'll find out more about other characters later.

But I can see we aren't going to agree, and that’s ok. But again, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it!

 

There was zero character development in 'Still' for me, nor did my love for Darryl or Beth increase in any way. The whole episode was a waste of an hour of the season. Nothing happened that I didn't know already and there was nothing in this episode that endeared me to these two characters any more.

I already liked Darryl and my opinion of Beth is actually diminished from this, if anything. She is acting more childish rather than growing up or maturing. If anything, Darryl allowed Beth to drag him down and endganger them both by getting drunk and slowing down their reactions and starting a fire that draws walkers. The only way this episode would have been good is if it ended with Beth getting eaten by walkers that were attracted to the fire.

Yes, there is obviously something going on here like trying to be cheap or either LAZY WRITING. I don't really care which it is. Waste of time for me and everyone I know that likes TWD. A whole hour of what could have easily been presented in 5 minutes and had the same impact for me.

 

Noe I understand why she accepts Daryl & all his faults. Also I can't believe Daryl ended up with those bunch of f*%k-tards! If they find Beth, I hope they rein themselves in - but I highly doubt it--they can -before Daryl has to kill them for trying to touch Beth. I hope he does kill them; I hate rapists & sadists & these assholes are both: they deserve to die(with no time to be walkers). Did he meet them before or after Rick 'almost' ran into them?
And who took Beth anyway?

 

I agree that they should have done to this episode what they did in the next one: showed how Daryl became part of the first group like they did the closet alcoholic. That would have put it in better perspective. Also, even in the ZA old habits (& the issues & traumas people had before -even the secret ones) WILL manifest at some point. Some people will get past their issues (sexism, bigotry, selfishness, class-ism, etc...) or their issues will become overwhelming & take control of their lives (like Shane), or else pop up at an inopportune time. Others will & are using the ZA as an excuse to rape, torture & maim: I call them 'Rape Gangs' - and now Daryl is temporarily with them; at least his bro - for all his faults - was not a rapist.
Daryl has gone thru a lot of abuse & goes inside himself; it's a defense mechanism many abused kids use. And all trauma experienced can pop up often at the exact wrong moment; it's a form of PTSD & reactions vary on the individual.
And there Will be Class Warfare caused by people who either want to take the place of the privileged (e.g. TG ) or who were the privileged & want their old 'rightful place' back in this New World Order (as if). It's inevitable. They will go Feudal: with kings or lords (or Gov's); their lieutenants, foot soldiers, courtesans, serfs & finally slaves. The will most probably go all mid-evil on our asses (lol): Making people farm &/or scavenge, then demand a overly large percentage of it for 'tribute' or their 'protection' from the dead. There will also be war with neighboring lords & they will 'draft' their surfs to fight -like what TG did- only on a potentially larger scale. The ZA is a lot like what's happening in war-torn parts of Africa.
Stress - like alcohol or drugs - can bring out the very best or the very worst in people - sometimes all at the same time: what's inside comes out to play.