|
Post by walkingdeadrules on Nov 25, 2016 9:03:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gioia on Nov 25, 2016 10:07:19 GMT -5
That was best (and most accurate) article I have read about the show in a while. They knocked it out of the part with Number 1: Taking too much pleasure in the pain. That is exactly my problem. All the promotional material was/is about Negan. He is the only character being promoted. They are actually worshiping him at this point. He is celebrated and that is definitely a difference in tone...and not a good one. All the other points were correct also.
|
|
|
Post by AlienSoul on Nov 25, 2016 10:46:18 GMT -5
Loving this. #2 is one that is always at the forefront of my mind. Frankly, I don't give a genuine fuck about anyone other than the A4 + M^2. I wish that I did since, as the article says, we're supposed to care about them and there are times when they come out of nowhere and huge amounts of screentime are devoted to them.
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Nov 25, 2016 10:47:23 GMT -5
How did the writer get into my head?!? "...Lately, The Walking Dead has designed its big moments not to propel the plot forward, but primarily for shock value. One need look no further than Abraham and Glenn’s excessively gruesome deaths to see that the series creators are doing their absolute best to shake fans to their core. The problem with this storytelling methodology, though, is that it isn’t actually factoring in storytelling at all. It’s a way to manipulate viewers — to keep them coming back for more because they won’t believe what happens next. But at some point, fans grow tired of being shocked and strung along. They lose track of why they were watching in the first place. And they move on..." For me the two key issues are 1) Poor writing to the lowest common denominator portion of the viewers and 2) Character developments and balancing light moments to compensate for the relentess, grim torture porn, gore and action movie sequences. Great read walkingdeadrules.
|
|
|
Post by gioia on Nov 25, 2016 10:51:46 GMT -5
Loving this. #2 is one that is always at the forefront of my mind. Frankly, I don't give a genuine fuck about anyone other than the A4 + M^2. I wish that I did since, as the article says, we're supposed to care about them and there are times when they come out of nowhere and huge amounts of screentime is devoted to them. Agreed. They are the only ones I care about too.
|
|
|
Post by gioia on Nov 25, 2016 10:54:32 GMT -5
How did the writer get into my head?!? "...Lately, The Walking Dead has designed its big moments not to propel the plot forward, but primarily for shock value. One need look no further than Abraham and Glenn’s excessively gruesome deaths to see that the series creators are doing their absolute best to shake fans to their core. The problem with this storytelling methodology, though, is that it isn’t actually factoring in storytelling at all. It’s a way to manipulate viewers — to keep them coming back for more because they won’t believe what happens next. But at some point, fans grow tired of being shocked and strung along. They lose track of why they were watching in the first place. And they move on..." For me the two key issues are 1) Poor writing to the lowest common denominator portion of the viewers and 2) Character developments and balancing light moments to compensate for the relentess, grim torture porn, gore and action movie sequences. Great read walkingdeadrules . The writing is horrible. They're not even trying anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on Nov 25, 2016 12:02:54 GMT -5
This article
|
|
|
Post by Sexual Chocolate on Nov 25, 2016 13:39:56 GMT -5
The only thing I disagree with is his dislike for season 2. I loved season 2, not in retrospect, but because we'd get multiple stories within each episode, the characters actually talked to each other and sounded like real people, and many of the bonds between characters were forged during this time.
|
|
|
Post by gioia on Nov 25, 2016 13:47:18 GMT -5
The only thing I disagree with is his dislike for season 2. I loved season 2, not in retrospect, but because we'd get multiple stories within each episode, the characters actually talked to each other and sounded like real people, and many of the bonds between characters were forged during this time. I agree with you. Going back and listening to the dialogue from then and now, you'd never know it was the same show. It may have been slow in some places but never uninteresting. Like you said, their personalities and bonds were being forged here. We were getting to know them. And the second half really picked up after Sophia came out of the barn. And Jon Bernthal was/is a powerhouse. I can watch his scenes over and over.
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Nov 25, 2016 15:55:33 GMT -5
I too loved season 2 and always have done so. For me my favorite seasons are in actual chronological order, which is sad IMO. But maybe I am just contrary and a hard to please viewer.
|
|
|
Post by greaterpursuit on Nov 25, 2016 17:59:31 GMT -5
Really excellent article. No sugar coating, it's just straight to the point, and an accurate reflection of criticisms you read at many forums related to the show.
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Nov 25, 2016 18:27:30 GMT -5
Frank Darabont was able to make us care about The Vatos in just one episode; the Vatos got less screen time than say Denise, or Enid or Olivia. Yet the audience cared and still cares about that group and their fate, which was revealed in a deleted scene. It was heavily inplied that The Governor was responsible for the destruction of the shelter and the disappearance of the Vatos community.
So we know it can be done. Even Dr Jenner was revealed as a fairly complete and complex character in his 2 episodes in season 1. I liked Jenner although many hated him. Again, we know it can be done. I feel that as a viewer I "know" the Vatos and Jenner with just those short exposures- a matter of the right details more than any particular amount of details. Balancing the skillful season 1 or even season 2 exposures to Dave and Tony for instance, we got what we needed to know presented in interesting ways.
I didn't "like" Dave and Tony on their endless search for new cooze, but I felt I understood the types of men they were and how they would behave during the ZA with every new group of survivors they encountered.
In later seasons, we see elevated redshirt characters like Olivia for instance, but we don't know as much about them. Every few episodes in season 5-6, we got a quick shot of Olivia moving through the pantry and that alone is supposed to make us care about her? Failed.
All I know of Olivia after almost 26 episodes is that she used to make her own proscuitto (as a cook I loved this and getting a character who shares my passion), she's afraid of violence and apparently doesn't do well as an inventory keeper with weapons. That's it. So even though I see her on the screen, she remains a non-entity, an unknown, because we don't learn anything new about her.Yet, TPTB seem to feel, along with the writers, that simply showng her on screen is enough to make viewers care. Spoiler alert- it doesn't work that way.
Give me some info about her, a reason to care about her and what happens to her or how she feels about things. Give me more than just her walking from one end of frame to the other please, and then I might actually feel something other than vague curiosity "I wonder if they just keep recycling the same 2 shots of her walking across the pantry, and inserting those into new episodes?" "Is she wearing the same clothing as in the last few times we saw her walk across the pantry?" "Do I care enough to go look for screencaps to show me- nope".
|
|
|
Post by v on Nov 25, 2016 19:00:46 GMT -5
Frank Darabont was able to make us care about The Vatos in just one episode; the Vatos got less screen time than say Denise, or Enid or Olivia. Yet the audience cared and still cares about that group and their fate, which was revealed in a deleted scene. It was heavily inplied that The Governor was responsible for the destruction of the shelter and the disappearance of the Vatos community. So we know it can be done. Even Dr Jenner was revealed as a fairly complete and complex character in his 2 episodes in season 1. I liked Jenner although many hated him. Again, we know it can be done. I feel that as a viewer I "know" the Vatos and Jenner with just those short exposures- a matter of the right details more than any particular amount of details. Balancing the skillful season 1 or even season 2 exposures to Dave and Tony for instance, we got what we needed to know presented in interesting ways. I didn't "like" Dave and Tony on their endless search for new cooze, but I felt I understood the types of men they were and how they would behave during the ZA with every new group of survivors they encountered. In later seasons, we see elevated redshirt characters like Olivia for instance, but we don't know as much about them. Every few episodes in season 5-6, we got a quick shot of Olivia moving through the pantry and that alone is supposed to make us care about her? Failed. All I know of Olivia after almost 26 episodes is that she used to make her own proscuitto (as a cook I loved this and getting a character who shares my passion), she's afraid of violence and apparently doesn't do well as an inventory keeper with weapons. That's it. So even though I see her on the screen, she remains a non-entity, an unknown, because we don't learn anything new about her.Yet, TPTB seem to feel, along with the writers, that simply showng her on screen is enough to make viewers care. Spoiler alert- it doesn't work that way. Give me some info about her, a reason to care about her and what happens to her or how she feels about things. Give me more than just her walking from one end of frame to the other please, and then I might actually feel something other than vague curiosity "I wonder if they just keep recycling the same 2 shots of her walking across the pantry, and inserting those into new episodes?" "Is she wearing the same clothing as in the last few times we saw her walk across the pantry?" "Do I care enough to go look for screencaps to show me- nope".you know I loved season one and two LOL I never understood the crap season two gets. You make great points about the Vatos, I loved them. The coolest thing is here you have these "hard core" gang like members, people that society crosses the street to get away from be the ones that came back for their grandparents. I wanted them to be part of the show. Jenner was another one, I understood why he did the things he did. He was fleshed out and made a full character. Dave and tony were able to show the other types of people that were out there (along with randal). you compare them to the Vatos and it paints a full picture that there was definiatly good and bad people out there without long over playing it. It was done in a very simple and realistic way. Look at the inmates they found in season three. Each was a surprise in their own way and even though most of them did not live long, you got a good idea of who they were and what they were about. (still missing Oscar and Axel but they can keep right on killing Andrew and Tomas). Character development does not require much, at least it didn't require much to make us care about them. It also doesn't take much for us to "know" these characters and what they stand for. it just takes good writing.
|
|
|
Post by gioia on Nov 25, 2016 19:02:20 GMT -5
Frank Darabont was able to make us care about The Vatos in just one episode; the Vatos got less screen time than say Denise, or Enid or Olivia. Yet the audience cared and still cares about that group and their fate, which was revealed in a deleted scene. It was heavily inplied that The Governor was responsible for the destruction of the shelter and the disappearance of the Vatos community. So we know it can be done. Even Dr Jenner was revealed as a fairly complete and complex character in his 2 episodes in season 1. I liked Jenner although many hated him. Again, we know it can be done. I feel that as a viewer I "know" the Vatos and Jenner with just those short exposures- a matter of the right details more than any particular amount of details. Balancing the skillful season 1 or even season 2 exposures to Dave and Tony for instance, we got what we needed to know presented in interesting ways. I didn't "like" Dave and Tony on their endless search for new cooze, but I felt I understood the types of men they were and how they would behave during the ZA with every new group of survivors they encountered. In later seasons, we see elevated redshirt characters like Olivia for instance, but we don't know as much about them. Every few episodes in season 5-6, we got a quick shot of Olivia moving through the pantry and that alone is supposed to make us care about her? Failed. All I know of Olivia after almost 26 episodes is that she used to make her own proscuitto (as a cook I loved this and getting a character who shares my passion), she's afraid of violence and apparently doesn't do well as an inventory keeper with weapons. That's it. So even though I see her on the screen, she remains a non-entity, an unknown, because we don't learn anything new about her.Yet, TPTB seem to feel, along with the writers, that simply showng her on screen is enough to make viewers care. Spoiler alert- it doesn't work that way. Give me some info about her, a reason to care about her and what happens to her or how she feels about things. Give me more than just her walking from one end of frame to the other please, and then I might actually feel something other than vague curiosity "I wonder if they just keep recycling the same 2 shots of her walking across the pantry, and inserting those into new episodes?" "Is she wearing the same clothing as in the last few times we saw her walk across the pantry?" "Do I care enough to go look for screencaps to show me- nope".This is great. Yes, I loved those damn Vatos. Remember when Grandma Vato came in and stopped the fight, took Rick by the hand and led him to Glen? Such a great memory. I didn't know anything about the Governor wiping them out. What?? I didn't like or dislike Jenner...but I got him. I cared enough about his story to try to understand where he was coming from. And Dave and Tony!! Ohmygod. Another great scene. It was so intense and suspenseful. There was a certain desperation with them. They were tired of being on the road. They were looking for a home. They had no problem taking it from someone and all the better if there were women there. They were able to explain their reasoning in a way that made us understand their motives but still not feel sorry for them or like them. That was the golden age of The Walking Dead. Back when villains were actually scary. Y'all are making me want to go back and re-watch Season 2 again. Frank Darabont and Glen Mazzarra (sp?) were great showrunners. The show has definitely lost its magic. Like you said, I couldn't care less about Olivia, Enid or Denise. I didn't care about anyone who came in after Season 4 except for Aaron. He's the only one I've connected with that came on in later seasons (Jesus too eventhough he hasn't been on that much). But Abe's whole crew and Tara...I don't care.
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Nov 25, 2016 19:03:21 GMT -5
I meant to add above my point that storytelling "shorthand", e.g. just showing us a character in the background, such as Olivia, isn't a substitute for actually giving us a story around her or some character development.
Did she have a family and if so, what happened to them? What hobbies does she have now? Where does she live? What are her values and strengths- I honestly have no idea here.
This is also what happened to Glenn after season 4- he was generally shown in the background, but not as an active participant. Mostly he was there with a few key moments in an episode or two but not much more than that. While it was great to see him, or Michonne (5-A) or Sasha or Carol in many seasons, simply having a character present in the background doesn't work as storytelling. Somewhere along the way, the new dudebros in charge of the writer's room have forgotten that Writing 101 fact IMO.
For Danai Gurira, her theater committments and PR requirements have prevented her from being onscreen as much as I would like, just as Chandler Riggs 5-A filming time was limited by personal time off. That is fine and understandable since the show does give cast time off for other projects such as 999 for Norman Reedus or The Happys for Melissa McBride.
But when the characters are opresent, have them truly present have abailable to viewers in a meaningful way rather than having us go through the list "...Maggie, Rosita, Eugene, where's Tara...?" ticking off as we see them in the background of a story.
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Nov 25, 2016 19:05:53 GMT -5
Frank Darabont was able to make us care about The Vatos in just one episode; the Vatos got less screen time than say Denise, or Enid or Olivia. Yet the audience cared and still cares about that group and their fate, which was revealed in a deleted scene. It was heavily inplied that The Governor was responsible for the destruction of the shelter and the disappearance of the Vatos community. So we know it can be done. Even Dr Jenner was revealed as a fairly complete and complex character in his 2 episodes in season 1. I liked Jenner although many hated him. Again, we know it can be done. I feel that as a viewer I "know" the Vatos and Jenner with just those short exposures- a matter of the right details more than any particular amount of details. Balancing the skillful season 1 or even season 2 exposures to Dave and Tony for instance, we got what we needed to know presented in interesting ways. I didn't "like" Dave and Tony on their endless search for new cooze, but I felt I understood the types of men they were and how they would behave during the ZA with every new group of survivors they encountered. In later seasons, we see elevated redshirt characters like Olivia for instance, but we don't know as much about them. Every few episodes in season 5-6, we got a quick shot of Olivia moving through the pantry and that alone is supposed to make us care about her? Failed. All I know of Olivia after almost 26 episodes is that she used to make her own proscuitto (as a cook I loved this and getting a character who shares my passion), she's afraid of violence and apparently doesn't do well as an inventory keeper with weapons. That's it. So even though I see her on the screen, she remains a non-entity, an unknown, because we don't learn anything new about her.Yet, TPTB seem to feel, along with the writers, that simply showng her on screen is enough to make viewers care. Spoiler alert- it doesn't work that way. Give me some info about her, a reason to care about her and what happens to her or how she feels about things. Give me more than just her walking from one end of frame to the other please, and then I might actually feel something other than vague curiosity "I wonder if they just keep recycling the same 2 shots of her walking across the pantry, and inserting those into new episodes?" "Is she wearing the same clothing as in the last few times we saw her walk across the pantry?" "Do I care enough to go look for screencaps to show me- nope".you know I loved season one and two LOL I never understood the crap season two gets. You make great points about the Vatos, I loved them. The coolest thing is here you have these "hard core" gang like members, people that society crosses the street to get away from be the ones that came back for their grandparents. I wanted them to be part of the show. Jenner was another one, I understood why he did the things he did. He was fleshed out and made a full character. Dave and tony were able to show the other types of people that were out there (along with randal). you compare them to the Vatos and it paints a full picture that there was definiatly good and bad people out there without long over playing it. It was done in a very simple and realistic way. Look at the inmates they found in season three. Each was a surprise in their own way and even though most of them did not live long, you got a good idea of who they were and what they were about. (still missing Oscar and Axel but they can keep right on killing Andrew and Tomas). Character development does not require much, at least it didn't require much to make us care about them. It also doesn't take much for us to "know" these characters and what they stand for. it just takes good writing. I think the show has shifted from searching for and providing the right" details to viewers v in favor of "here's some Olivia or Francine in the background since they missed the last 2 ASZ episodes" type of television. Getting the right details is much harder than simply cutting in one of those shots of Olivia crossing frame in the pantry. It honestly feels ot me as if everyone other than Terrence Malick 2.0 and Gimple are phoning in episodes at this point.
|
|
|
Post by jeowyn on Nov 26, 2016 12:36:39 GMT -5
I agree with almost everything that's been said. And like a lot of you - I have a special place in my heart for the first few seasons (count me as another one who didn't understand the hate S2 got). IMHO, those first few seasons are what filled-in for S4 & 5 where they were lacking. It's the strong relationships established in those first few seasons that helped anchor the increasingly haphazard/separated-ness of the SG-era. I think S6 - S7 has just finally reached a breaking point where a good chunk of the audience is starting to get confused because that 'base'/core is getting farther and farther into the past and the new seasons aren't building on them, so much as on comic plot and shock moments. The focus has seemingly shifted away from character-centered to plot-centered (and characters squished in them).
|
|
|
Post by AlienSoul on Nov 26, 2016 13:06:55 GMT -5
I too loved season 2 and always have done so. For me my favorite seasons are in actual chronological order, which is sad IMO. But maybe I am just contrary and a hard to please viewer. Same - almost. Season 2 is my favorite season. Then season 1, 3, 4, 5. I hate season 6. It doesn't even make the cut.
|
|