I agree wholeheartedly, but the impending incestuous relationship between Nick and Alicia redeems it all for me.

 

I agree with many of your ideas, though none of your grammar. I find the show to be slow moving, which is disappointing; I agree the zombie quotient is lacking, even after tonight's episode. Fact is, bar was set very high in TWD season one, and it's extremely obvious the production team is going for an extreme counterpoint in order to differentiate. Sucks, I agree. Still watching as well.

 

It seems that you're completely missing the point. There is very little ground to cover when you're just focusing on walkers. Why should we watch a show set in the same world as TWD if we're only going to see something we've seen before and was focused upon for the first two seasons on that show?

Walkers also cannot be used as a long-term story device whereas people can because they have the brain capacity to make their own judgement and decide what they themselves want to do no matter the situation. Would you rather watch a show where people are just running around being eaten without an actual purpose or is it better to see a story that has a good balance of that. The Walkers may be what changed the world but the idea of a show focusing entirely on walkers is ludicrous. It would simply be repetition and we would likely never get a second season out of it.

While it's good not to forget the main threat, it should only be used in small doses lest we grow tired of it before the story reaches a certain point. TWD does not use the Walkers effectively, on the main show they are used for Shock and nothing more most of the time. Of-course there are occasional events in the story that require them to step into the mix but the entire point of The Walking Dead was to tell a Morality tale on the human condition. If you want a basic Zombie film then go and watch something by Romero.

 

Cool, what country? My husband is in NL and they're not airing it. He listened earlier as I rhapsodized imagined reasons for why that's so... [Charlie Sheen]

Frankly the whole shebang would be more fun for me if they just called it Walking Dead: LA. Still your grammar also sucks, come at me when I'm on your native language forums, bro.

 

I think what kills me about every thread that whines about a show is the notion that somehow your opinion and point of view is the same as everyone else's?

Sorry that you are not happy with the show,I am liking it.

 

Was it?! I'd be impressed to hear a sincere reckoning of fact, but I don't think that's what Kirkman set out to do. He wrote a zombie story that ended up being an imagined commentary on the human psyche. But, zombies. That was thought One.

Edited to add an apostrophe, sorry for other things I missed. Cheers!

 

The name of the show is Fear the walking dead ,not See the walking dead.

 

Agreed, despite your soured OP. So far the show is more slow moving than my tastes, and I just Netflixed the Girlmore Girls until its eventual, painful end. This show (WD:LA) is banking on a zombie-interested public that will keep watching until a real story/show developes. Currently, they're giving us a watered down series that wouldn't have passed pilot-snuff were it not for TWD.

 

I disagree, and the public consensus and critical reviews don't seem to back this. On Imdb, a poll of 17,000 people have given the show a rating of 7.9, which is above average for television dramas. I think the show is pretty strong so far.

 

I was actually referring to the show which is wildly different to Kirkman's story at this point despite adapting from it. While Darabont mad eit clear that he wished to focus on the people above all else, he still did have a good balance between Walkers and humans and I think that FTWD does a good job of making a story set in a place where we've seen pretty much all there is to see in terms of the main threat. I personally find a story about how society fell in that particular scenario much more intriguing than simply watching a basic zombie show like the OP apparently wants to see.

Also the "Morality tale on the human condition" comment was a quote by Laurie Holden who up until she was killed off, was repeating that regularly in interviews.

For the record, I also believe that as a writer, Kirkman's first thought on creating the story was the characters and not the zombies themselves. And that isn't just a baseless assumption, it's common logic that a writer would focus on the story first rather than just going "ooh! zombies!!"

 

I concur that Darabont's intention was most noble. He's my favorite show runner. It's a serious bitch that they choked his budget, therefore ruining his ability to give us his show. I've failed to read many (most) of Holden's interviews, but from what I understand she was a Darabont recruit as well, which means we can imagine she thought well of his intentions for the show. Kirkman was once in that camp also. And then he was not. Good times.

What myself and (perhaps?) Survivor are arguing is that the show is not lacking in zombies necessarily, but lacking in intrigue. While after Season One Episode One of TWD, I was hooked, it would not have been so if my first exposure was FTWD.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ So it seems. I'm counted amongst those who watched. Still have criticism, and I still think these first episodes were created with the expectation of a longer run than a regular pilot would have (one that didn't have TWD fanfare to bank on.) What a world! Nepotism for television shows. But you're right, the numbers are good.

 

I agree that without TWD the show would have not been greenlit for 2 seasons up front. But I think the pilot was solid and would have likely passed even without the parent show. Just compare it to the crap that makes it on television these days lol.